Saturday, September 26, 2009

What the leading NYT War Monger was saying about Iraq in 2002 and 2003... sound familiar?... 500,000 more of our kids needed!

David Brooks: our nation's premier expert warrior back when he shook his pom-poms for a leading Jewish mag, the Weekly Standard:
David Brooks, Weekly Standard, February 6, 2003:
I MADE THE MISTAKE of watching French news the night of Colin Powell's presentation before the Security Council. . . . Then they brought on a single "expert" to analyze Powell's presentation. This fellow, who looked to be about 25 and quite pleased with himself, was completely dismissive. The Powell presentation was a mere TV show, he sniffed. It's impossible to trust any of the intelligence data Powell presented because the CIA is notorious for lying and manipulation. The presenter showed a photograph of a weapons plant, and then the same site after it had been sanitized and the soil scraped. The expert was unimpressed: The Americans could simply have lied about the dates when the pictures were taken. Maybe the clean site is actually the earlier picture, he said.

David Brooks, Weekly Standard, March 7, 2003:
I do suspect that the decision to pursue this confrontational course emerges from Bush's own nature. He is a man of his word. He expects others to be that way too. It is indisputably true that Saddam has not disarmed. If people are going to vote against a resolution saying Saddam has not disarmed then they are liars. Bush wants them to do it in public, where history can easily judge them.

David Brooks, Weekly Standard, November 11, 2002:
In dealing with Saddam, then, we are not dealing with a normal thug or bully . . . The Baathist ideology requires continual conflict and bloodshed. . . . The CIA and the State Department might think otherwise, but we are not all game theorists. Human beings are not all rational actors carefully calculating their interests. Certain people--many people, in fact--are driven by goals, ideals, and beliefs. Saddam Hussein has taken such awful risks throughout his career not because he "miscalculated," as the game theorists assert, but because he was chasing his vision. He was following the dictates of the Baathist ideology, which calls for warfare, bloodshed, revolution, and conflict, on and on, against one and all, until the end of time.
And the winner for the most self-serving and stupidest comment by an 'esteemed' New York Tmes writer Brooks is this one:
David Brooks, Weekly Standard, February 21, 2003:
I mentioned that I barely know Paul Wolfowitz, which is true. But I do admire him enormously, not only because he is both a genuine scholar and an effective policy practitioner, not only because he has been right on most of the major issues during his career, but because he is now the focus of world anti-Semitism. He carries the burden of their hatred, which emanates not only from the Arab world and France, but from some people in our own country, which I had so long underestimated.
Wolfowitz might be disliked because he's a weasel and bald-face liar who worked out of the Pentagon and helped create' evidence' about Iraq that was fed to pseudo-reporters llike Judith Miller, also of the Times that was used to scare a gullible American public into war. Or Brooks might be referring to that comment made about Wolfowitz by an American general that Wolfie was the "stupidest fucker on the face of the earth." The general had to work with Wolfie, so I won't question his judgement.

But don't look at facts, just scream 'anti-Semitism' anytime someone catches you in some criminal deed and all will go away.

According to some older dictionary's, the term 'Semite' was used to describe desert dwelling people who spoke Arab and Aramic, but has now been used almost exclusively by the Jews.

Why isn't the murder of over one million Iraqi's and several hundred thousand Afghan's not called 'anti-Semitic?'

Will Davie's wet dreams for endless war against the Muslim world come true? If the Pentagon war mongers and Wall Street get their way, it will. Another 500,000 of our kids to fight the 'War for the Jews.'

Israel wants 500,000 more of your kids
Embedded in General Stanley McChrystal's classified assessment of the war in Afghanistan is his conclusion that a successful counterinsurgency strategy will require 500,000 troops over five years.

This bombshell was dropped by NBC reporter Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC's Morning Joe on Wednesday:

"The numbers are really pretty horrifying. What they say, embedded in this report by McChrystal, is they would need 500,000 troops - boots on the ground - and five years to do the job. No one expects that the Afghan Army could step up to that. Are we gonna put even half that of U.S. troops there, and NATO forces? No way."
The 500,000 number came out on Thursday and on Friday, right on cue, the dead guy, Bin Laden speaks from the grave. Man, has he got a sense of timing or what?

I imagine that as soon as General McChrystal gets his new bullet-stopper's, Bin Laden will return to being worm food.... until the next troop increase request.

Lucky for OBOMBA that they released a several years old report about Iran that managed to clog up the news cycle endlessly.

If one was cynical, one might think it was pre-planned to divert attention away from that 500,000 more troops needed.


  1. The religious psycho's in America and Isarel are intent on creating a Holy War. The rest of the world are the victims

  2. Some of those devoted 'Christian' that proclaim to love Jesus are some of the worst crazies when it comes to loving this endless war against the Muslim world.

    If they'd read their bible, they'd understand that JC preached a gospel of peace and love.

    If those Pentecostal and Evangelical types are hoping and praying for that war, they ought to ask just who or what they're really praying to.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Fair Use Notice

This web site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance the understanding of humanity's problems and hopefully to help find solutions for those problems. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. A click on a hyperlink is a request for information. Consistent with this notice you are welcome to make 'fair use' of anything you find on this web site. However, if you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. You can read more about 'fair use' and US Copyright Law at the Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School. This notice was modified from a similar notice at Information Clearing House.

Blog Archive