"Who would have thought that Iraq imploding would give the mountebanks who tricked us into war a chance to rear their heads and seek rehabilitation — somehow grabbing onto the hellish spiral as proof that they were right in their original wrongness?
. . . .
The creepy comeback scenario is playing out with the Cheneys, Paul Wolfowitz (who absurdly rejects the moniker of 'architect,') Bill Kristol, Paul Bremer, Robert Kagan (who prefers the term 'liberal interventionist' to 'neocon') and Elliott Abrams (who actually had the chutzpah to write a Politico Magazine piece about Obama titled 'The Man Who Broke the Middle East')."
Don't get me wrong: I opposed the Second Gulf War and was never fond of Cheney. Today, I also oppose American boots on the ground in the Middle East, and that includes the 300 American military advisers recently sent by Obama to Iraq, who cannot change the course of events there, but can be taken hostage. On the other hand, I am concerned by the rise of ISIS (also referred to as ISIL), which threatens the stability of Iraq, Jordan and Saudi Arabia.
Mention of the regional threat posed by ISIS in the empty-headed Dowd opinion piece, dedicated to attacking Cheney? Not a chance.
Mention of the origins of ISIS, i.e. Obama's neo-isolationism and its disastrous consequences in Syria (9 million refugees out of a total population of 22 million), in the Dowd opinion piece? Not a chance.
Mention of the possibility of an independent Kurdistan for the Middle East's 30 million stateless and oppressed Kurds, i.e. this storm's one silver lining, in Dowd's opinion piece? (Obama opposes independence for the Kurds.) Not a chance.
After all, it's all about Dowd's obsession with a ghost of the past.
No comments:
Post a Comment