Did he admit defeat?
Yesterday bush said we won’t leave Iraq as long as he is president. Wow, talk about saying a mouthful.
So is he saying we have no chance of winning that war for at least the next two and a half years? Sounds like it to me. What happened to his plan for winning? Did that go down the tubes with his roadmap for peace in the middle east? Guess so.
If he knows we can’t win the war in the next two and a half years, why keep fighting it? Is the plan now to just allow Iraqis and American soldiers to keep dying for as long as he’s in office? At the present rate that will be a lot of lives lost, and for what?
Seems to me that when he said that yesterday he was, for all means and purposes, admitting defeat and saying under his leadership the war is not winnable. That’s one sorry as hell statement. We can’t win the war but he won’t bring the soldiers home and save their lives.
Is this about keeping the “bad guys” from following us home, or is this about a stubborn man so determined not to admit his errors that he will not consider the consequences of his deeds to the detriment of hundreds if not thousands more deaths?
We have no leader, we have a fool on a deadly folly. We have a president who cannot or will not change course. Even in the face of defeat he plows along in order to avoid turning around and facing his deadly mistakes. He has made many mistakes, but this war is not a mistake. It is a crime. And the criminal who started this war seemed to admit yesterday that he has no ambition or ability to end it and no plan to win it. If he admits he can’t win, isn’t that also an admission of defeat?
So is he saying we have no chance of winning that war for at least the next two and a half years? Sounds like it to me. What happened to his plan for winning? Did that go down the tubes with his roadmap for peace in the middle east? Guess so.
If he knows we can’t win the war in the next two and a half years, why keep fighting it? Is the plan now to just allow Iraqis and American soldiers to keep dying for as long as he’s in office? At the present rate that will be a lot of lives lost, and for what?
Seems to me that when he said that yesterday he was, for all means and purposes, admitting defeat and saying under his leadership the war is not winnable. That’s one sorry as hell statement. We can’t win the war but he won’t bring the soldiers home and save their lives.
Is this about keeping the “bad guys” from following us home, or is this about a stubborn man so determined not to admit his errors that he will not consider the consequences of his deeds to the detriment of hundreds if not thousands more deaths?
We have no leader, we have a fool on a deadly folly. We have a president who cannot or will not change course. Even in the face of defeat he plows along in order to avoid turning around and facing his deadly mistakes. He has made many mistakes, but this war is not a mistake. It is a crime. And the criminal who started this war seemed to admit yesterday that he has no ambition or ability to end it and no plan to win it. If he admits he can’t win, isn’t that also an admission of defeat?
posted by pissed off patricia at 3:46 AM
49 Comments:
Hi PoP!
He seemed a tad overwrought to me. The more overwriught the more inarticulate he becaomes. I'm sick of it.
On my home answering machine it says "If you are W, Dick Shamey, or Donale Scumsfeld, please call back when I am here. I have some things to tell you." People from all over love it.
I lived on the side of a hill in Knoxville for many years. Each year during the winter, when the hill iced over, there was always some guy in a small, light pickup truck who thought he could get to the top. I'd hear him out there, spinning his tires, revving his engine, backing up and trying again. Others would start up the hill, slide a little, and cautiously back down until they reached a safe spot to turn around. Not this guy. He kept forcing his truck up that hill until he slid off into someone's front yard or crashed into another car. Bush could easily have been that fellow.
George W. and his neo-con allies are intellectually incapable of formulating a strategy for success in Iraq. That's what you get when you elect morons to run your government.
While I agree that invading Iraq was a mistake of monumental stupidity, and one that I absolutely opposed at the time, I don't think that we can just leave because its too hard. Most of the people in this country supported the moron when he made that decision, and that makes us responsible to the people of Iraq. We presumed to think we could redefine an entire nation and its people, and having failed that we cannot just abandon them to chaos and civil war. The price of our hubris will be the blood of our own soldiers.
There must be a workable exit strategy, but we will probably have to wait until we have leaders with IQs higher than rocks before we find it.
Sweet. He's leaving the mess for the next pres to clean up, and he doesn't mind admitting it. You describe this administration perfectly: "We have no leader, we have a fool on a deadly folly." Somewhere in the blogosphere, I saw a photoshopped picture of Bush being hauled away in handcuffs. I wish.
Brilliant, PoP. I gaped when I heard Bush say that, but the ramifications didn't dawn on me, as they clearly dawned on you: American troops are going to be in Iraq for over two more years.
People say we hate Bush because we disagree with his policies. I don't bother to hate him, but he scares the hell out of me. While it is possible that terrorists will devastate America at some point, I think that there are far more likely threats to Americans: that our nation under Bush will turn into an unmitigated security state, or that our former allies will decide to curb Mr. Bush's excesses. Better we do it ourselves first: let's impeach the bastard.
About the middle of the speech it hit me that this fool will not feel he is a success until someone drops a nuclear (even if he can't say it) bomb somewhere in the Middle East.
He just keeps escalating the problem as if digging deeper and deeper in the hole will somehow make it magically fill up and heal over.
While I agree with Darwin's Dagger that we went in there like cowboys - guns blazing - I don't agree that us staying there any longer is helping Iraq.
We have been asked to leave by the Iraqis a couple of times already.
We should have left in 2004, and if we have to leave under conditions similar to Vietnam, it will be more of a disaster than if we pull out in an orderly manner.
We have blown (and I think purposefully) the reconstruction. And we have fostered the conditions that make it impossible for us to do anything positive there. It's time to go, long past time. Staying only prolongs the agony.
I was watching Oberland last night, and in the background of a vid of angry adult males charging around waving weapons, there was a young man. Just a teenager, sitting in the dirt by the side of the road watching the warmongers, he was weeping. I have a son, I know how hard it is for a young man to cry, and to see him weeping, like his whole world is crashing in around him, it went beyond hubris. It seemed in that moment to distill the war we started and we pursue.
The sight of it tore a huge hole in my heart.
How dare we charge in and bust up these people's lives!
*How dare we*
Did anyone notice that the press conference was being held across the street from the white house?
Supposedly the press corp offices within the white house are being remodeled.
However, due to the increasingly serious questions coming from the press, is it possible the entire press corp will be banned from the white house for the remainder of this nightmare?
Now that would be typical Bush.
Your with us...or agin us...
peace...
Chuck
Why keep fighting the war? You covered them all except for one - there is still a lot of money to be made in the Middle East. Blood money, that's what it is.
I think he is daring us to impeach him! Kind of the "bring `em on" mentality!
I say let's do as he dares! :>)
It's no news that the occupation of Iraq is predicated on lies. Investigating the actual reason for the PNAC's invasion leads me to the conclusion that those sub-human war criminals are certainly winning. While people are dying left and right and the world becomes yet more dangerous, the assholes who plotted this whole thing and are pulling the strings are laughing all the way to the bank. Of course the arrogant puppet in chief will keep victims of the American economic draft in Iraq to kill, rape, and thieve an entire people of its dignity. Why not? The chaos and bloodshed is good for Americans (the top one percent, that is).
I didn't watch his press thingie, I just can't. It makes me sick and knotted up for hours. We can stop the war - impeach the bastard and try him and all of his administration for war crimes. That might get us all off the shite list to the rest of the world.
he didn't admit defeat he just hinted that he was defeated. what you all with your Liberal agenda is totally not his fault!!! the man can't go back on his decisions, that'd show weakness and we can't be weak if we've got ta git all dem terrorists.
I agree with Steve Bates: we are turning into an unmitigated security state. Quite terrifying, when you think of it.
Impeach now.
On the tags of my paper cards scattered around, Bush is named as the village idiot.
Too bad the US has to keep up with (and supports) a villain who seeds terrorism instead of subduing it.
What a mascot, what an evil person. May he burn in his made up eternal hell - I surely will not stretch out my hand.
bluegrrl hit it on the head: Dubya's true message is that he's leaving the mess for the next president to try to clean up. The more you see him, the more painfully obvious it is that he really has no interest in his job anymore. He'd rather spend the rest of his term clearing brush in Crawford. Perhaps we should let him.
If he admits he can't win, isn't that also an admission of defeat?
I'd love to hear his answer to that while he's under oath (hint, hint)...
What is worse is that he said that he doesn't care what the people think--he does what he thinks is right. Hey George--we call that a king or a dictator. For someone so hell bent on bringing democracy to the world, he doesn't feel it's necessary in the US.
What gets me is that Clinton gets an impeachment trial for having a consensual affair, and Bush runs free after starting an illegal war that has destabilized the entire world.
Hello circle of liberals anonymous.
All this fodder about Bush is as insidious an argument as I have read from you.
Firstly, no one ever said we could win the war on terror. Becuase it's not fought against any person place or thing. It's fought against terrorists and plots of terrorism. The likes of which are omnipresent throughout the world. It would be even more foolish for him to say we could end terror than to say we cannot win the war on terror.
Second, why is it liberals disassociate the WOT with the war in Iraq when trying to make the argument you do, but when trying to embarress the administration they refer to the war in Iraq. Why? because America supports the war on terror.
Bush is a leader. He is proactive unlike you reactive liberals.
Liberals also think that Rome was built in a day. We are talking about basically BUILDING an entire counrty less the infrastructure. Iraq [government and culture] is being created from the ground up.
Do you suppose this takes like a day or two!? The argument that Bush is not a leader is as repugnant as the notion that you have any inkling whatsoever of how to wage a war.
Perhaps you do have some suggestions? I'd be interested in disecting them.
doctor rick. Bush and company are continuously telling us that Iraq is "Central Front on the WOT". Their lastest twist is that if we leave Iraq before we've finished then the terrorists will follow us here.
If the war in Iraq was truly making us safer and not less so then I think we might be able to see some support for it. The reality is that for less than what we are spending in Iraq in a week we could inspect all of the containers coming into this country and all of the freight going into the holds of passenger airplanes.
Bush and company are trying to impose the American vision of Democracy on Iraq at the point of a gun and will never succeed. Change like that has to come from within.
Bush and his people are not stupid (all evidence to the contrary) and they know they have lost in Iraq. They are now just trying to salvage some "political advantage" before the midterms and 2008.
As to the "Bush is a Leader" I would ask "Where is he leading us?" Record deficits, an economy just waiting to snap, creating terrorists by the truckload in the Middle East, and one foriegn policy failure after another. Point to the successes if you can.
Lemmings going over the cliff have a leader too.
This just in: the latest poll puts Lieberman and Lamont in a statistical dead heat.
I know PoP, I know. Don't feed the trolls! I claim a really bad day and a "strained psyche".
fallenmonk, you have removed the words from my mouth. Thank you!
Fallenmonk, I just authored a post on the deficit being less than projected by over 100 billion. And what, are you living in poverty or something? America is strong and so is our economy, if not, whose is?
Homes have like 5 or 6 tvs, property and home ownership is up even in minorities, there are tv's in cars, food on everyones plate (fatter people) and we have acheived a lower unemployment rate than when Co-Clinton was in office.
And as far as Bush creating terrorists my liberal friend with kool aid in hand, who created the terrorists in the 93 trade center attack, the uss cole attack, the attacks in south africa and other embassys?
Was that the governor of Texas fault? Reminder, the conservatives didn't blame Clinton, they started conducting surveillance. The liberals, instead of being proactive in their pursuit of those individuals (Syria offered us Bin Laden) they opted to defend our formerly impeached President.
One week after 9/11, President Bush gave a speech in which he said he was going to eliminate evil from the world. He lost me right there, that's a dilusional statement. I knew right then that this President does not live in reality.
Iraq has been mishandled and screwed up so bad it's almost impossible to rectify it now. It's just going to get bloodier and bloodier, until one side establishes it's power over the other. Then you will see the real blood bath start, what's happenned now is just a relative bird bath by comparison.There ain't a damn thing we can do at this point but either leave, at which point the world will blmae us for whatever happens, or we stay, and still get blamed.
It's a no-win situation and Bush ought to be impeached for it. Unfortunately, that will never happen, the Democrats just ain't going to win enough seats to enable an impeachment in the House, to say nothing of conviction in the Senate, which takes a two thirds majority.
We're screwed.
Is that the motivation behind LAMEont? An impeachment?
Excuse me while I eat my young...
PoP, if it weren't for that lovely "Mission Accomplished" banner hung oh so long ago....:-) I love your interpretation. Well said sister. Well said! Blog on PoP, blog on all.
Nice to see that those Martinis haven't impaired your thoughts. Beautifully sober assesment all the way through.
Maybe the only consolation for us is that the "Hundred Years War's" record is still safe.
The will to power, like chasing a white rabbit.
Dr. Rick...
This administration has embarrassed (and, in my view, discredited) itself with its ridiculous justifications for invading Iraq -- and, in doing so in such a thoughtless and myopic manner, engendering a civil war. I don't know of a single American who doesn't believe terrorists should be dealt with and punished accordingly. But most Americans do have a problem with our continued involvement in Iraq. The reason for the dissociation might be the fact that it wasn't Iraq that attacked us on 9/11. That's not a liberal meme we're trying to spread; it's the truth. Just sayin'.
And frankly, I'm no Bill Clinton fan. I didn't vote for him in either '92 or '96 -- nor do I intend to vote for Hillary if she gets the nod for '08. So I don't know who you're addressing; I just know it ain't me. But as I recall, there was no mass outrage against George H. W. Bush after the WTC bombings in '93. That was about seven weeks after Clinton took office. There was, however, a whole lot of "Blame Clinton first" bullshit following the 9/11 attacks -- eight months after his presidency ended.
Republicans did embrace expanded surveillance following the WTC bombings, but when Clinton tried to expand them further following Timothy McVeigh's bombing of a federal building, these same Republicans balked as hard as they could. Clinton was overreacting, they said. And I agreed with them, thinking Clinton was engaging in a naked power-grab, nothing more.
But after 9/11 happened, the GOP did a 180 -- suddenly naked power-grabbing was fashionable, now that the worst foreign attack on American soil in history had occurred on the watch of a Republican president. Goodbye, conservative principles, hello, Patriot Act.
By the way, I'm an ex-conservative. Surprised?
Leaving Iraq would cause more violence and bloodshed than us being there creates. The entire Islamic radical terrorist movement is directly attributed to the power vaccuum created in Afghanistan after the Soviets withdrew in '89. A power vaccuum in Iraq could lead to an Iranian invasion, and Iran cutting off Iraqi oil from the market. It could also lead to open war against Israel. You still want to leave Iraq and negotiate with Iran?
The wahhabi want a Muslim empire...they are still living in the 7th century. Giving them Iraq and nuclear weapons would be the worst move possible.
You hate Bush, we get it. Move past it for just a few minutes and evaluate what the world would be like with a Muslim empire, controlling an entire region of the world, possessing nuclear weapons, and most of the world's oil resources.
Jsut because it is ongoing is not a reason to stop. If that is the case, we would have stopped after Normandy, or Pearl Harbor. Sometimes you have to sacrifice for the greater good. I for one am glad that some people are willing to stand up for it.
Maybe your right, "Leaving Iraq would cause more violence and bloodshed than us being there creates."
Hey, maybe if America didn't exist, the world would be better off. It's all our fault.
Robert:
I know about the Muslim fundamentalists who want to remake the world in their image. Do you think this crap has any chance of happening in America, a country where roughly four out of five citizens consider themselves Christians of one denomination or another? I don't. Sure, Islamic nations may be sitting on too much of the world's oil reserves for our comfort. So perhaps the sooner we look into sustaining ourselves with energy sources other than oil, the better -- we've only had decades to do just that, but for some reason we prefer to stay addicted to oil. Hard to imagine in this light why the idea of negotiating with Iran gives so many right-wingers the hives, isn't it...
And what is it with this insistence on comparing World War II to what's going on in Iraq? There's no comparison. 9/11 was worse than Pearl Harbor, no question. But these two events don't belong to the same order. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor -- that was a national declaration of war. Al-Qaida struck the World Trade Center and the Pentagon -- that was not a national declaration of war. That was bin Laden saying, roughly, you Americans are fair game since you won't pull out of the holy land, rescind your unconditional support for Israel and Israeli policy, or refrain from exploiting Muslim nations. His jihad, contrary to what we've been force-fed for about five years, is defensive, not offensive -- and that's why sacrificing for the greater good is a bogus appeal. There is no greater good to speak of.
I second what fallenmonk wrote: Lemmings going over the cliff have a leader too...
"Firstly, no one ever said we could win the war on terror."
WTF did the battery fall out of your fucking hearing aid? Bush Cheney and Rumsfeld say it every time they take a breath.
"...trying to embarrass the administration"
We don't have to try to embarrass this administration, just showing clips of them speaking on the Daily Show does just fine. We let these buffoons speak for themselves.
" Bush is a leader" No... He is a malignant narcissist who never left the country or cared about anything but partying until he was over 40 years of age. He is a suit powered by ego and blood money.
"Liberals also think that Rome was built in a day. We are talking about basically BUILDING an entire country less the infrastructure. Iraq [government and culture] is being created from the ground up" First of all Liberal is not a dirty word... Republican is.. secondly many of us are progressives. We want to make intelligent choices based on facts, science, and good will. Yes we have to rebuild Iraqi infrastructure... we are the ones that destroyed it you sanctimonious knob. Yes even today most Iraqi people have fewer utilities than they did under Saddam. Oh and how about all the depleted uranium we've powdered the country with. Say yes to mass cases of cancer. Thank you George Bush!
Bush had so many opportunities to do the right thing. People were telling him what needed to be done all along. But one by one these people were forced out, fired, or demoted. Why? Because NeoCon Duchebags will get their way no matter what. And whats worse.. they will always find easily excitable citizens to boldly espouse their platform, even when it it not in their personal best interest.
I held my middle finger up at the TV screen while watching his speech the other day. It boggles the mind that he actually thinks the nation will buy into this much longer.
Mission Accomplished...you mean Nam part two accomplished. Just another test bed for own weapons of mass destruction.
Bushie boy sounds soooo stalinesqe
I am fascinated by the fellows such as Robert who sees what the situation is, not what it was and where it will go from here.
He is obviously less than thrilled that Shias and Hezbollah are going be soon roaming freely around the ME, and I understand that, but fails to see that this situation was solely created by one of the most stupid military moves ever - the American invation of Iraq.
For Christ sake, the only counter weigh holding Iran in any kind of check was Iraq with it's relatively secular population led by the Sunnis who are a lot more tolerant bunch than can be hoped to be in charge now on.
What stupidity! What a fiasco!
My mother might think that I am smart but obviously not smart enough to have my name on the previous drivel. Sorry!
Mimus, you suggest we stop defending Israel?
Your puppet Bob Casey says we need to support them all but unconditionally!
Rick:
No, I didn't suggest that. I said that bin Laden condemns us for supporting Israel, which he does. He can piss up a rope (assuming his kidneys will permit it) for all I care -- I believe Israel has every right to exist, tho I don't believe it has a right to run roughshod over its neighbors.
The thing is, Israel's not disappearing anytime soon, nor are the Middle Eastern Muslims who want it wiped off the face of the earth -- sooner or later, they're going to have to learn to get along, and the sooner the better in my view. I can understand bin Laden's position, given his beliefs. But I don't endorse it by a long shot. If he can't abide either the existence of Israel or our support of Israel, then that his problem. My beef is with our side's stubborn refusal to at least hear what the other side (including bin Laden) has to say -- what do we have to lose, other than our bullshit hubris?
My 2 cents.
Robert - you said:
Sometimes you have to sacrifice for the greater good. I for one am glad that some people are willing to stand up for it.
Hey man, they need LOTS more soldiers over there - put your courage and your body where your mouth is if you're so into this bloody war. Otherwise, what's your big excuse for staying here where it's all safe and warm - do you, like Cheney, have more important things to do???
Gypsy, the left wing rhetoric is inane. My big excuse for staying here is that I am a marine veteran - a combat veteran at that. I was a scout/sniper team leader with the II Marine Expeditionary Force in Desert Storm. I have been in combat, I have spent a significant portion of my life both in uniform and in the region. I am part of a long line of Marines, at least since WWII one of my family has worn the dress blues of Marines. My children are not old enough to serve yet, but if they were I would gladly support them in going.
Mimus, I wasn't comparing WWII in its entirety. I was comparing military deaths with Pearl Harbor or Normandy. I military deaths are of limits, then why did we fight those battles?
To allow any of these people legitimacy is to deny their purpose and their actions. How do you suppose that bin Laden has a point of killing New Yorkers because we support Israel, when he was in Afghanistan, and then calls it self defense? That is the most absurd logic I have ever heard. And when it comes to "talking", what do you suppose is the middle ground between democracy on one side, and the destruction of Israel and genocide of jews? Not that we shouold negotiate at all, but I am interested in hearing where you think there is room for compromise. Read the charter of Hamas and Hezbollah. Read what bin Laden and Zawahiri and Zarqawi and Rahman have written. There is nothing they want except to eradicate Israel and kill westerners in route to an Islamic empire.
And no, whoever asked, it can't happen in America. But America can't be safe if these people control any part of the world and have aims at destroying others.
Robert -(excuse me, I am so tired of the chicken hawks in DC who send people like you to kill for them, everyone I personally know that is for the war is a chickenhawk, and went out of their way not to serve in VietNam- yet now think nothing of sending young people to an illegal stupid war to be killed and maimed)
If you have experienced war and still are warmongering - what's up with that? (no, I really want to know) How could you live thru that horror, and still want it to go on? How could you see all the death and destruction, the ruined lives - soldier and civilian, and still want us to deliver that to those who just want to live their lives. And how could you support a failed policy, and a president who in his incompetence is creating the very scenario that we fear will destroy the world?
So, why are the warmongers being allowed to grab all the power, to lead the world down the path to destruction right now? Right now when we have way too many problems to take care of if the human race is to survive through the end of this century. *It's insane*
Gypsy, I am not "warmongering" in the light that you choose to shine upon it. Sherman had it right, war is hell. I don't suppose to compare my experiences with those of infantrymen in Vietnam or currently in Iraq, but Swartzkopf also had it right when he said that all it takes is one guy shooting at you to make it terrifying (paraphrased). War is horrible. Death, destruction, etc. I don't dispute that.
The people with whom we are at war do not merely wish to live their lives. I wish to live my life unencumbered by fear, violence, taxes, a repressively intrusive government, flu, car wrecks, heart surgeries, and a million other things that cannot be avoided. Heart surgery is miserable and ugly...I have seen on Discovery or somewhere what it looks like from the outside. I also know that without the tissue cutting and blood flowing that the person on the table has a short life expectancy. So they endure the pain and misery because the alternative is less appealing. The same is true in this endeavor. The alternative to us leading a war on terrorism or in Iraq or anywhere is to live in fear and deal with violence from people who hate us because they think that their god hates us. A world of fear is not one I wish to hand over to my children because we were afraid to change it.
Why all of this failed policy stuff? By what measure do you consider it failed? Is it simply because people are dying? I would make an example of the invasion of Normandy - Two hours after the first Mike Boat landed, then your measure would consider the invasion a failure. Fast forward 10 months and the result was the conquering of the Nazi war machine.
I have no fear of the world ending. I do have trepidation over the fact that Islamic wackos would obtain nuclear weapons, and the next 9/11 would kill a hundred thousand or more.
There is no place left in the civilized world for 7th century mentalities and ruthless and oppressive dictators. Some can be dealt with covertly or through diplomacy; others must die by the sword. The bottom line is that we have been blessed with a country of liberty and virtue (In the abstract here, I am not naive nor blind) and I believe that we must act aggressively to defend it.
Do you really think that this war in Iraq created all of these terrorists? What do you think these people were doing before?
I guess I could sum it up by saying that we are both anti-war, I just simply see that it is right and necessary at times.
Do you really think that this war in Iraq created all of these terrorists? What do you think these people were doing before?
Actually, yes, I do. Saddam may have been an odious and despicable man, but he ran the country as a secular "democracy" and didn't let the theologians have too much power. We just for no apparent reason went riding in there on the back of shock and awe, and busted up the place. All those people that we dragged out of their homes and tortured and raped and killed WE have given reason to hate us, where before they liked our bluejeans and music.
Iraq with Saddam was better than what we have now. Now, the whole middle east is coming under the rule of the fanatic islamic terrorists, and we can't do anything about it because BushCo's broken our military, and they'll bleed us until we resemble nothing better than Russia... and we've gone a long way down that road already.
The alternative to us leading a war on terrorism or in Iraq or anywhere is to live in fear and deal with violence from people who hate us because they think that their god hates us.
The other alternative (that Bushco wasted - and why I personally think he's incompetent) was to treat terrorism as a police matter, and join together with all the other peace loving countries the world over to combat it within our system of laws. We had the world's sympathy, we could have strengthened international law and international cooperation, but instead we started lobbing bombs.
By declaring war on a tactic, we undermine our own ideals and freedoms. By living under the law, and seeking to apply those laws to our problems, we advance liberty.
The worst problems world over are created when we ignore our founding principles and try to force others to accept people as their leaders that we can dominate. I could name many countries the world over where we have supported the worst dictators and abusers rather than standing for freedom and liberty and self determination. Sending death squads instead of help is not a good advertisement for our ideals and our way of life. Threatening with shock and awe only fortifies the opposition. Whenever we abandon our ideals and our democratic values, we loose, and we suffer. When will we learn that?
Power....
Actually, the majority of the those commiting violence in Iraq aren't even Iraqis. Neither al-Zarqawi or his successor are Iraqi.
The region is becoming more democratic, not less. Libya voluntarily gave up their nuc program, Saudi has allowed greater citizen participation, the Taliban are no longer in power in Afghanistan, and there is a more moderate president in Lebanon. Of course, there is no longer a Baathist power in Iraq killing hundreds of thousands of his own people. Rhetoric offends me. There are less rapes and murders committed by Americans than were committed yearly by Uday and Qusay alone.
Terrorism was treated as a police matter for several decades. How many cases did the FBI build and prosecute for: 1983 Beiruit Bombings, the Achile Lauro hijacking, PanAm 103, Khobar Towers, a half dozen US embassy bobings around the world, the USS Cole bombing...there must be more than one approach to terrorism. Law enforcement alone has failed, because it isn't something law enforcement is structured to handle.
You believe that Iraq was better with Hussein in power? I am speechless that anyone could possibly have than opinion. I suppose you think Castro should head the Human Rights Commission, huh? Strengthened international law? There were laws against hijacking aircraft....that didn't seem to work.
Sorry - I know the taliban are now taking back Afghanistan, and have replanted the poppies they pulled up the year before we invaded. We took care of that moderate in Lebanon, now Hezbollah is taking over there. Iraq is falling into civil war, Iran is becoming less and less secular by the minute.
Under Saddam Hussain, the power was on, there was peace in the streets. Hussain tortured a few, we torture many. Now there's death squads in Baghdad, killing as many a month as we lost on 9/11, and they have a tenth the population.
Women could walk alone in safety(well, excepting for the attentions of Saddam's sons) on the streets of Baghdad under Hussain, now they stay at home during the day, not even able to venture out with their men and under a tent. The schools have been taken over by the religious extremists, and girls are banned. The middle class is fleeing the country - those who still have the money to, and the rest are moving into enclaves segregated by religion.
The elections that we pushed for elected a weak government that cannot show their face in public without risking death. That government has asked us twice to leave, and has declared open season on our soldiers.
You can tell me, after all this, that we've improved things for the common Iraqi?
Shock and awe made things exponentially worse, and gave Israel and Russia a big excuse to indulge in repression and war and torture.
Our foreign policy is a failure, our diplomats are bullies, and nearly every country in the world views any proclamation or request coming from the US with suspicion.
So, tell me again how the region is becoming more democratic?
Post a Comment
<< Home