bandwagon of condolence offerers, but the idea that anyone in "Afghanistan" would be comforted by the words of Newt Gingrich is in the realm of Twilight Zone done vulgar.
In ordinary times it would be unthinkable for someone of Gingrich's ilk to be be speaking in public at all, much less presuming to speak for the "American" people. This should serve as a warning. Newt Gingrich was elected to Congress and rose to be Speaker of the House. He of course overreached, and resigned in disgrace, but if someone so lacking in character could be elected to anything bespeaks a fundamental weakness in the system we call "democracy."
Might this vulnerability have something to do with the quagmire in which we find ourselves in "Afghanistan?" We should not forget how we got there. The invasion and occupation were launched by George W. Bush, a man who assumed the office of President of the United States by criminal means. His active negligence in advance of the September 11, 2001 attacks enabled the attackers to succeed far beyond what they reasonably could have expected. Somehow they had full confidence. It was in order to deflect attention from his crimes that Bush pushed for the invasion of "Afghanistan." He quickly abandoned the alleged purpose of the invasion - capturing or killing Osama bin Laden. He had bigger plans - "Iraq."
Here's some background on the story from Democracy Now.
I posted this yesterday to NPR's story on the massacre:
U.S. Apologizes for Deadly Shootings in Afghanistan
There is a beauty to this incident, in that (it) is an allegory to our ("U.S.") response to all that happens that is counter to official truth. We will soon hear the tiresome cliche of "Isolated incident," if it hasn't been trotted out already. We will also hear that the "mission" will continue, as if we are "missionaries" who are "converting" the "Afghans" to "Christianity," er, "Democracy."
U.S. Command Fights Terrorists On African Soil
I followed up with this:
John Hamilton (HappyJack) wrote:
I ran out of space. What an intrepid reporter or analyst might wonder is whether the "U.S.," with its vast resources and powerful military, has the wherewithal to engage with poor countries more efficiently than sending the Navy Seals out to rescue hostages.
In the case of "Somalia," wouldn't it have been better if the "country" had developed in an equitable and sustainable way, instead of being skewed to a narrow sector of an elite, leading to an inevitable collapse, and then the present chaos and piracy?
Maybe, but we'll never know. We aren't smart enough. We can do brute force pretty well, but it no longer works. PR aside, our invasion and occupation of "Iraq" has been a disaster. Our invasion and occupation of "Afghanistan" is turning into a farce, with stupidity being piled on fantasy. Both of these adventures have been good for military careers, but have not improved our international standing, and have been disasters for our economy.
In the current era this isn't likely to change any time soon. Domestic politics dictate "staying the course." If "Republicans" had their way, we would do even dumber things, and more often. Given that ilk such as Rush Limbaugh control the dialogue, such as it is, bottom feeding rules.
Fri Mar 09 2012 11:29:23 GMT-0600 (Central Standard Time)
For the official "U.S." arbledy garbledy about "Afghanistan," click here. It reminds me of Catholicism, with ritual dress, more medals than a man can earn (in Catholicism's case, it was how much red was mixed with black, the type of hat worn, the fanciness of the garb, and accompanying ritual), highly codified language, a pretend reality presented as absolute truth, certainty, delusion.