Shunning the Democrats, Too

From Axis of Logic

The U.S. Democrats are Hell-Bent for War and Anti-war's Robust Response
By Les Blough, Editor
Mar 2, 2007, 18:53

The Democrats' obfuscation and confusion

To use Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi's favorite opening line, "Let me be clear" - The Democrats are hell-bent for war and everyone with brain-1 knows it. All their talk of the non-binding resolution against the war, their newly found, vociferous opposition to the war, their attacks on the Bush regime (internicine fighting for the spoils of war) and of bringing the troops home by 2008 (2 more years of slaughter), their refusal to defund the war to "support the troops", their claim that their hands are tied leaving them helpless to stop the war - all this talk is nothing less than obfuscation intended to make a simple matter a complex and confusing one.

On December 5, shortly after the people voted for the Democrats to end the war in the mid-term elections, Pelosi went on record, “Let me be clear. We will not cut off funding for the troops. Absolutely not!”. Two days ago she repeated that position, stating that the Democrats would not cut off funds arguing incredibly that to do so would put U.S. troops in jeopardy. Yesterday NPR recorded her again, "Let me be clear. We will not cut off funding for our troops."

What is it that the Democrats are Refusing to Defund?

Let's take a look at exactly what it is that the Democrats in Congress are refusing to stop:

Recently, the Bush regime has targetted the Iraqi Resistance in Baghdad when he asked congress to give him "one last chance" to win the war. The most recent U.S. tactic to accomplish this bloody affair has been mass-scale bombing of neighborhoods in Baghdad, currently being carried out under the rubric, "Joint U.S.-Iraqi Security Operation", otherwise dubbed by the Pentagon, "Operation Enforce-the-Law" or "Operation Law Enforcement". This "security operation" is certainly not providing security for those dying and fleeing from U.S. bombs in the neighborhoods.

Yesterday (March 1, 2007), Tom Bullock, NPR's mouthpiece in Baghdad, reported that the U.S. military has been carrying out "heavy bombing ... in numerous neighborhoods in and around Baghdad" attempting to wipe out "car bomb factories". Almost immediately after these latest U.S. attacks, Tom Bullock described these neighborhoods as "densely populated". When asked about reports of casualties, the NPR reporter said the bombing continued for about 2 hours and just ceased "so it's too early to know the extent of casualties". True to form, NPR couched this report in terms sypathetic to this U.S. attack on the people of Iraq, citing the numbers of U.S. troops previously killed by IED explosives and a recent bombing of the Iraqi police who serve the puppeteer of the U.S. installed regime. NPR referred to this escalation of the war using the Pentagon's new coinage: "Operation Law Enforcement" intended to bring about "security" in Baghdad. They undergirded their report with references to prior IED attacks by "Sunni Insurgents" rather than the Iraqi Resistance forces against the occupation.

20 minutes after the NPR report cited above, the NPR script was apparently rewritten for Bullock deleting references to the "heavy bombing" in "dense neighborhoods". In the new version, NPR described this as a "security crackdown".

Iraqi victims of the war

Here's an Axis transcript of Tom Bullock's words on NPR:

"Dozens of loud explosions were heard today throughout Baghdad. In a city where explosions are common these stood out. A series of blasts coming in quick succession. A U.S. official ... says the explosions were an artillary barrage targetting predominantly Sunni neighborhoods in and around the city, part of a planned U.S. military operation targeting a car-bomb network in and around Baghdad. A high level military official says the operation will last for days and be followed up with U.S. and Iraqi ground troops. Car bombs remain a serious threat throughout Iraq. At least one exploded on Thursday in the City of Fallujah targetting a police convoy. The blast killed at least 5 Iraqi policemen and wounded at least 10 others. The group was heading to a wedding."

Note the emotional pull at the end of the NPR report: "The group was heading to a wedding party", Bullock stated, with his voice dipping into pity, but no pity for those children, women and men who are being killed and wounded in Iraq today under the current, escalation of U.S. attacks in Baghdad.

Robust Military Response by the Resistance

In the midst of this intensified U.S. bombing of dense neighborhoods in Baghdad, the BBC tells us today (March 2) that the Iraqi Resistance has carried out a successful military operation, killing 14 Iraqi policemen who are working under their employer and paymaster, the United States government. The Democrats will not have to defund the salaries for those "police" - the Iraqi Resistance has done it for them.

The Democratic Congress Supports the War

This aggression and violence being brought down on the heads of the Iraqi people this week is precisely what the Democrats are supporting with their refusal to end the war. Immediately after the Democratic Party was voted into control of both houses of the Congress they began to depict the U.S. occupation in Iraq as "complicated" by "sectarian conflict" and "impending civil war". Upon this "complicated situation" they layered additional "concerns" with predictions of a Shia slaughter of Sunnis if the U.S. were to abruptly withdraw from Iraq. This argument amounts to nothing less than killing Iraqis to save Iraqis ... or to save Iraqis from themselves - burning the village to save the village. Either way, it amounts to murder - not "collateral damage" - not even "killing" - let's not mince our words - the term is mass murder. What else can it be called? Nearly a million Iraqi people have been slaughtered, directly or indirectly by the U.S. government in the last 4 years of war and occupation.

The Democrats join Bush Fear-Mongering

The Democrats have also explicitly and implicitly supported Bush's fear-mongering claim that to leave Iraq now will put the U.S. at risk for future attacks by Al Queda - the same lie that he used to invade Iraq in the first place. When they began to realize they were losing in Iraq the Democrats claimed that they initially supported the war because they were deceived by the Bush regime. The Bush regime claimed they were deceived by the CIA and the CIA blamed the Bush regime and round and round it goes. Most interesting is the fact that while all these parties were "deceived" and "misled" - the U.S. people weren't misled at all. To see that, we only have to go back into the archives published on Axis of Logic and on many other websites during the buildup to the March, 2003 invasion. If we weren't deceived or confused, why were those who should have ALL the "intelligence" at their disposal? There is one answer to that question: They weren't deceived or confused at all. They knew exactly what they were doing and why they were doing it.

Read the rest here.