Stupid Premise Number One
COOPER: But, Mike, as you well know, a lot of people -- supporters of the president's policy will say, yes, of course it's going to need a political solution, but you can't have a political solution unless there's security, unless there's, you know, an end to these death squads. It's sort of a catch-22.
THERE is always an answer, Andy. The problem is that you don't see it EXCEPT ONE WAY. It's like that same rhetoric that keeps pouring out of CNN. There is only one way to think about peace in the Middle East and that is Western Domination.
"W"rong
MIKE MURPHY, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Yes, that's exactly right. The idea behind the president's strategy is use our military power to try to create a monopoly of force in Baghdad so these extra government actors on both sides can't create the civil war or political strategy, particularly among the Iraqis who have not shown a lot of sophistication or courage is possible.
The other way to go is partition. You got three choices -- leave, partition or try to create a security situation by using American force -- which is tough, but that's where the president is going -- and hope the Iraqi political class comes together in a compromise.
I think it's a fair bet, it's the bet the president is making. The question, is will he be able to sustain support for this thing against a hostile Congress long enough to give it a shot. And that's up in the air.
FOR ONE, Mr. Murphy makes it sound as though 'partioning' Iraq is his idea. That's a joke. The ethnic elements of Iraq have been partitioning that country for millenium. It has nothing to do with some 'idea' of Bush or anyone else.
Ever see a map of Iraq, Andy? Of course you have. Ever notice the OBVIOUS? Of course you have. The north is where the Kurds are, the south is where the Shia are and the middle of the country has been the place WHERE Saddam lived with his military out of the reach of, guess what? Ah, come on guess. Yep, The FORMER No Fly Zones.
Which brings me to a 'side note' in that with so many downed aircraft over An Albar lately, is there some kind of USA strategy to attempt to 'create' a No Fly Zone over An Albar in hopes that something like a benevolent entity will settle there as they did in the north and south of Iraq? Just an observation.
At any rate, it is hideous to say that Bush has 'a chance' in Iraq of achieving an end to his means. It's over in Iraq. The Maliki government is being disregarded by Bush because Bush wants to keep the Sunnis that supply his oil happy. You don't think for one minute that Bush/Cheney or anyone eles had NO CLUE as to why the radicals of Islam are predominately Shia, do you? Is there any doubt as to why the Shah lost Iran? I mean Iran was once no different than Iraq. A country that was BUILT by Western Purpose. Why was the Shah removed from power? Why were their hostages? The then President Carter could not have stopped the overthrow of the Shah if he wanted to. It was a 'do or die' circumstance for the Shia. Just that simple. Whey would Iraq be any different?
