A few sharp victories ...
... some conspicuous acts of personal bravery on the Patriot side and a colourful entry into the capital! Since some poltroon has laid claim to "Daily Beast," we shall have to look instead on what appears to be the Daily Mail's policy for the war.
Boosted by the teaser "Impeachable?" at the Drudge Report, WND sends those readers who can spare a moment from stockpiling gold and freeze-dried food to an EXCLUSIVE review of the new WND epic "Impeachable Offenses?" at the Mail. Little therein will surprise you if you're familiar with the Mail as a print or online product, but the Mail's explanation of the Iran-contra follies in relation to BENGHAZI!!!!!!!!!!!!! is particularly enlightening:
It's difficult to read without drawing parallels with the 1980s-era arms-for-hostages deal that brought charges against 13 Reagan administration officials, many of whom received pardons from President George H.W. Bush before they could be tried.
That case, although different in many crucial ways, put arms in the hands of Iranian rebels and was originally conceived as an unlikely scheme to use Israel as a middle-man to supply them. Later on, the plan was modified to use some of the proceeds from the sale to fund anti-communist rebels in Nicaragua.
One of those "crucial ways" might be that the "Iranian rebels" were (oh, how do you put this?) the Iranian government. Iran was in the middle of a protracted and very old-fashioned war with Iraq, which we liked rather better despite its occasional tendency to attack American warships and use chemical weapons on the battlefield (which the Iranians did too, though less effectively) and against uppity civilian populations. But the powers that be seemed to think that some advanced antitank and antiair missiles -- this part is generally considered "negotiating with terrorists," which itself is an interesting lesson in how interchangeable "terrorists" and "government" are as concepts -- would help the Iranians encourage their friends in Lebanon to, you know, and if a little extra money is diverted to some actual rebels* in the bargain, who cares? Let's let the Mail provide more context!
... Weapons delivered secretly to overseas agitators, as Iran-Contra later showed, can bring unintended consequences. A generation later, the Muslim sect marching Iran toward nuclear weapons are successors to the rebel group the U.S. armed in the 1980s.
That's certainly a lesson we want to -- umm, march toward with. It could also lead us to wonder again why it is that people get information from the Daily Mail. Except for that colourful entry into the capital!
* The Contra movement was anti-Sandinista (partly because some of it was disgruntled Sandinista) but not anti-communist in any meaningful way; the Sandis and the Nicaraguan communists never really got along anyway.
Boosted by the teaser "Impeachable?" at the Drudge Report, WND sends those readers who can spare a moment from stockpiling gold and freeze-dried food to an EXCLUSIVE review of the new WND epic "Impeachable Offenses?" at the Mail. Little therein will surprise you if you're familiar with the Mail as a print or online product, but the Mail's explanation of the Iran-contra follies in relation to BENGHAZI!!!!!!!!!!!!! is particularly enlightening:
It's difficult to read without drawing parallels with the 1980s-era arms-for-hostages deal that brought charges against 13 Reagan administration officials, many of whom received pardons from President George H.W. Bush before they could be tried.
That case, although different in many crucial ways, put arms in the hands of Iranian rebels and was originally conceived as an unlikely scheme to use Israel as a middle-man to supply them. Later on, the plan was modified to use some of the proceeds from the sale to fund anti-communist rebels in Nicaragua.
One of those "crucial ways" might be that the "Iranian rebels" were (oh, how do you put this?) the Iranian government. Iran was in the middle of a protracted and very old-fashioned war with Iraq, which we liked rather better despite its occasional tendency to attack American warships and use chemical weapons on the battlefield (which the Iranians did too, though less effectively) and against uppity civilian populations. But the powers that be seemed to think that some advanced antitank and antiair missiles -- this part is generally considered "negotiating with terrorists," which itself is an interesting lesson in how interchangeable "terrorists" and "government" are as concepts -- would help the Iranians encourage their friends in Lebanon to, you know, and if a little extra money is diverted to some actual rebels* in the bargain, who cares? Let's let the Mail provide more context!
... Weapons delivered secretly to overseas agitators, as Iran-Contra later showed, can bring unintended consequences. A generation later, the Muslim sect marching Iran toward nuclear weapons are successors to the rebel group the U.S. armed in the 1980s.
That's certainly a lesson we want to -- umm, march toward with. It could also lead us to wonder again why it is that people get information from the Daily Mail. Except for that colourful entry into the capital!
* The Contra movement was anti-Sandinista (partly because some of it was disgruntled Sandinista) but not anti-communist in any meaningful way; the Sandis and the Nicaraguan communists never really got along anyway.
Labels: daily mail, fractious near east
posted by fev at 11:52 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home