quasi in rem

Wednesday, May 19, 2004

The Passion of the Fritz

We are going to miss Fritz when he's gone. Not just for the fact that he is one of the last big time Fritz's that used to populate American politics, but because he's an old time gasoline of the fire thrower. If there is a bad situation that could only get worse by overblown and incoherent rhetoric, Fritz was usually your man.

Which brings us to today's memo. Fritz has decided to tackle the issue of the War in Iraq and the malfeasance. Let's see if has:

With 760 dead in Iraq and over 3,000 maimed for life, home folks continue to argue why we are in Iraq -- and how to get out.


"home folks." Nice touch. You gotta love those home folks. They know what's right and wrong! (Actual number of "home folks" that Fritz has spoken to in the last 20 years: approximately 0)

Now everyone knows what was not the cause. Even President Bush acknowledges that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. Listing the 45 countries where al-Qaida was operating on September 11 (70 cells in the U.S.), the State Department did not list Iraq. Richard Clarke, in "Against All Enemies," tells how the United States had not received any threat of terrorism for 10 years from Saddam at the time of our invasion.


All true. That was why we invaded Afghanistan. We invaded Iraq so that September 11 would have less chance of happening again. Oh and ask the piolts who were routinely shot at in the neutral zone if they had ever been threatened in the last ten years. Oh and if there was no threat from Saddam in the last ten years then why did President Clinton lob a few cruise missiles at him in 1998. Is Fritz alleging he was just wagging the dog?

On Page 231, John McLaughlin of the CIA verifies this to Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. In 1993, President Clinton responded to Saddam's attempt on the life of President George H.W. Bush by putting a missile down on Saddam's intelligence headquarters in Baghdad. Not a big kill, but Saddam got the message -- monkey around with the United States and a missile lands on his head. Of course there were no weapons of mass destruction.


The missile clearly did not land on his head. His head is currently right on his head, apparently with no need of dental work and lice free. The message that Saddam got was if you monkey around with the U.S nothing really bad happens. Sometime after this he got the message that the oil for food program was one sweet ass money maker.

Now I put a break here and I really shouldn't have because there is none in the story. But I felt I needed to prepare the reader for one really big non-sequitur:

Israel's intelligence, Mossad, knows what's going on in Iraq. They are the best. They have to know. Israel's survival depends on knowing.


How did Isreal get into this discussion? Where did that come from? I thought Isreal's survival depended on a strong military, moderate Arab states, and support from the international community.

Israel long since would have taken us to the weapons of mass destruction if there were any or if they had been removed.


Ahh, the Jews know all. They would know where they were of course. Unless the WMD were in Syria, or Iran, or still hidden.

With Iraq no threat, why invade a sovereign country? The answer: President Bush's policy to secure Israel.


I knew it had to be the Jews! They ruin everything!

Led by Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Charles Krauthammer,


What do those three guys have in common? Mm what can it be?

for years there has been a domino school of thought that the way to guarantee Israel's security is to spread democracy in the area. Wolfowitz wrote: "The United States may not be able to lead countries through the door of democracy, but where that door is locked shut by a totalitarian deadbolt, American power may be the only way to open it up." And on another occasion: Iraq as "the first Arab democracy ... would cast a very large shadow, starting with Syria and Iran but across the whole Arab world." Three weeks before the invasion, President Bush stated: "A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example for freedom for other nations in the region."


See it wasn't that a free and democratic Iraq that would benefit Iraq itself, Iraqi people in particular, the whol of the middle east, world wide stability, and a dimunition of terror supporting states, it was because a democratic iraq helps the Jews! That's why we invaded.

Every president since 1947 has made a futile attempt to help Israel negotiate peace. But no leadership has surfaced amongst the Palestinians that can make a binding agreement. President Bush realized his chances at negotiation were no better.


Ok another break here for the reader. We are about to turn another big corner so catch your breath.

He came to office imbued with one thought -- re-election.


In Fritz's defense, that is one more thought than most liberals give Bush credit for.

Bush felt tax cuts would hold his crowd together and spreading democracy in the Mideast to secure Israel would take the Jewish vote from the Democrats. You don't come to town and announce your Israel policy is to invade Iraq. But George W. Bush, as stated by former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and others, started laying the groundwork to invade Iraq days after inauguration. And, without any Iraq connection to 9/11, within weeks he had the Pentagon outlining a plan to invade Iraq. He was determined.


So in Fritz world, Bush is not pro-Jew, he is pro-Jew-vote. And the way to get those Jew-votes is to invade Iraq. Of course, if the Jews knew Saddam did not have WMD's as previously stated, then he was not a threat, so that they would know that an invasion of Iraq would not, in fact, be good for Israel. And so the invasion would not get more Jew-votes. Fritz world is very complex, or should I say nuanced.

President Bush thought taking Iraq would be easy. Wolfowitz said it would take only seven days. Vice President Cheney believed we would be greeted as liberators. But Cheney's man, Chalabi, made a mess of the de-Baathification of Iraq by dismissing Republican Guard leadership and Sunni leaders who soon joined with the insurgents.


Did Chalabi actualy do that? When was in charge?

Worst of all, we tried to secure Iraq with too few troops.In 1966 in South Vietnam, with a population of 16,543,000, Gen. William C. Westmoreland, with 535,000 U.S. troops was still asking for more. In Iraq with a population of 24,683,000, Gen. John Abizaid with only 135,000 troops can barely secure the troops much less the country. If the troops are there to fight, they are too few. If there to die, they are too many. To secure Iraq we need more troops -- at least 100,000 more. The only way to get the United Nations back in Iraq is to make the country secure. Once back, the French, Germans and others will join with the U.N. to take over.


This whole paragraph is a meandering jumble. First the math. According to his calcualtions we would need another 650,000 troops if the analogy based on population holds. Of course in Vietnam there were hundreds of thousands of foreign troops actively fighting us from a secure and supportive nation with unending resources from China and the Soviet Union. It was also in Vietnam. (Dana Carvey as GHWB:The real lesson of Vietnam is never fight in Vietnam)

Next is his last sentence in the paragraph a threat or a promise. Is he noting that the UN is a bunch of wussified corupt beuracrats who will come in and take over a stabel situation ushering in the French and Germans who will then use the stable sitaution to funnel more oil money into their coffers? If that is his point, I agree with him wholeheartedly.

With President Bush's domino policy in the Mideast gone awry, he keeps shouting, "Terrorism War."


I have never heard the President shout "terrorism war". I have however heardSenator Hollings say. In fact he linked the terrorism and the War in Iraq himself and he said this when he votedon the War Resolution: "While the threat is not imminent, the goal is desirable and the failure of Congress and the President to move together at this point would seriously damage our credibility and cause us irreparable harm in foreign affairs." I guess he forgot about that.

Terrorism is a method, not a war. We don't call the Crimean War with the Charge of the Light Brigade the Cavalry War. Or World War II the Blitzkrieg War.


Excellent logic here. ("The Hundred Years War" and the "Seven Years War" (years being a time measurement not a war), the War of the Roses (Roses being a flower not a war), The Cold War (cold being a temperature description not a war) and several other excepted)

There is terrorism in Northern Ireland against the Brits. There is terrorism in India and in Pakistan. In the Mideast, terrorism is a separate problem to be defeated by diplomacy and negotiation, not militarily.


Damn it! If only we had negotiated with Al Quaida when they called us before September 11th. Maybe we could have haggled them down to say just one World Trade Center Tower and the Agriculture Building and 1500 hundred dead in exchange for another 50 acres on the West Bank and pictures of Ariel Sharon in women's underwear.

Here, might does not make right -- right makes might. Acting militarily, we have created more terrorism than we have eliminated.


Well not really according to the statistics. But what the hey. Under that logic we never should ahve invede Afghanistan either.

So in the end we have the truth. It was the Jews fault we invaded Iraq, eventhough they knew there were no WMD. We should negotiate with terrorists and we should rename the war.

All in all and excellent piece by Fritz. It really is too bad that he has decided to retire, but I bet somehow, the Jews are invovled in that decision as well.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home