Another highly recommended article. This bit near the end caught my eye.
As the Washington Post reported it: "Clinton played down the latest burst of violence, telling reporters she saw 'no sign' it would reignite the sectarian warfare that ravaged the country in recent years. She said that the Iraqi government had 'come a long, long way' and that the bombings were 'a signal that the rejectionists fear Iraq is going in the right direction'."9
So ... the eruption of violence is a sign of success. In October 2003, President George W. Bush, speaking after many resistance attacks in Iraq had occurred, said: "The more successful we are on the ground, the more these killers will react."10
And here is Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, speaking in April 2004 about a rise in insurrection and fighting in Iraq over nearly a two-week period: "'I would characterize what we're seeing right now as a - as more a symptom of the success that we're having here in Iraq,' he said ... explaining that the violence indicated there was something to fight against - American progress in building up Iraq."11
War is Peace ... Freedom is Slavery ... Ignorance is Strength. I distinctly remember when I first read "1984" thinking that it was very well done but of course a great exaggeration, sort of like science fiction.
Fascinating how Hillary is now saying exactly the same things that the Bush Administration said. Of course, that's nothing new. That's been true all along as Hillary helped to push us into this war. She just tries to hide that when she runs for elections. But still, the fact that the US Secretary of State is saying exactly the same things today that the Bush Administration said about Iraq is very revealing about American democracy.
Stop and think about how we got here. If you rewind back two years, the 2008 election looked to be shaping up as a contest between some Republican, probably McCain, who would run on continuing Bush's pro-war policies, and Hillary Clinton, the Democrat, who would run on a platform of returning the Clinton administration to power. And, since we all know the record of the 1990's, everyone knew that this would be a very Republican-like administration. Especially in foreign policy, where we'd seen the first Clinton administration continue the Bush cold-war against Iraq, start an illegal war in Yugoslavia, and launch missiles whenever they needed a distraction in the news.
The voters in the Democratic Party revolted and rejected this. The voters in the Democratic primaries made it clear that they wanted an alternative to the left of Clinton's Republican-like policies. And it was Obama who capitalized on that revolt. He positioned himself to the left of Hillary. He made hints that he might conduct a foreign policy where we actually talked to countries instead of bombing them. This positioned himself to the left of Hillary who was running around talking about 'obliterating' Iran.
The problem is, it was all a giant fraud. Obama was in no way an alternative to the Reagan\Bush\Clinton\Bush policies. Obama immediately moved to put the senior Clinton people in charge of foreign policy. At least in the areas that he didn't just completely surrender complete control to the Republicans and the generals. And of course, the ultimate symbol of this was to put Hillary in as Secretary of State.
This is very revealing of American elections, and the choices, or lack thereof that are available to the American voters. There was no 'major' candidate in the last election that offered any chance of any 'change' in the direction this country is taking. Given that some 70% of the American citizens have been telling pollsters for several years now that they feel America is 'going in the wrong direction', that's very revealing about American 'democracy'.
Face it, the corporations have no intention of ever giving us a real choice. If the American people really feel we are going in the wrong direction and that its time for a change, they are going to have to reject the candidates with hundreds of millions of dollars of corporate money in their accounts. They are going to have to reject the candidates of the corporate parties. The candidates in the elections that might provide real 'change' are the ones that are ignored or sneered at in the corporate media. The candidates in the elections that might provide real 'change' are the ones that need a volunteer to pick them up at the airport and give them a ride because they don't have the hundreds of millions to spend that the corporate candidates always will have.
None of the 'major' candidates will ever give you any real change.