Wednesday, March 19, 2008

Bush Speaks On Iraq

Bush just finished his speech on the fifth anniversary of his war.

He was lavish in his praise about how our troops have performed their duties in a war that has lasted longer than World War Two. No one can argue that.

He was resolute in his intention to chase down terrorists wherever they choose to make a stand. Yay... wave the flag.

He forget to mention a couple of things...

How he lied about WMD's, his original stated reason for invading Iraq, and how Saddam was only days away from attacking America with those non-existent WMD's.

Remember that? Saddam was only days away from attacking America. History has proved otherwise.

OK, he knocked off Saddam and found no stockpiles of WMD's to attack America with. So why are we still there after five years?

He also neglected to mention that in five years of fighting his "warn tear", Osama Bin Laden is still foot loose and fancy free in Pakistan, a supposed ally.

He told us that - if we pull back - the terrorists in Iraq will regain all their lost ground. If that's the case, what the hell have we accomplished?

He says that anywhere we pull out of, the terrorists will regain control, and in the same breath, tells us the surge is working.

Apparently, the surge will continue to work only if we continue to surge... Forever, one must assume. This must be true, since his anointed replacement McCain talks of a one-hundred-year occupation of Iraq.

As usual, his live audience was a hand-picked friendly one. The man is terrified to face a real American audience.

His speech contained nothing new, nothing different. It only showed us - again - that he has set for himself an impossible task, to prove how he was right all along, and that he has no concern whatever as to the cost in American lives and treasure.

His strategy: Lavishly praise the troops before sending them off to die: Consider the money spent as nothing more than paper, sort of like he considers the Constitution.

Keep in mind that this man, George W. Bush, has forced America into it's longest and costliest war - an undeclared war - against a nation and people that had done us no harm. A "pre-emptive strike" Bush called it, the words and actions of a coward. He did not lead us into this war, he ordered it from the safety of the Oval Office.

We need to be rid of this lunatic sooner, rather than later. He has been an unmitigated disaster for America. Who knows what other grievous misfortunes he will cause before his time is up?

4 comments:

Roci said...

The war has NOT lasted longer than WW2.

First: wars are fought between nation states. our "war" ended with the fall of the Saddam regime and the end of organized resistance. And YES, organized resistance from the Saddam regime DID end.

2. WW2 started in Asia in 1937 and did not end until August of 1945. 8 years.

3. Instead of comparing this to WW2, why not compare it to Vietnam (another counterinsurgency)? Started 1959 to 1975...16 years. We got even less from that and it cost us many times more lives. And it shaped the next 20 years of American foreign policy. One might even say it IS still shaping the way we fight this war.

He did not lead us into this war, he ordered it from the safety of the Oval Office.

Just like every president, king, and dictator since the middle ages. So what.

Bob said...

1- So you contend that after Saddam fell, the "war" ended? Odd, particularliy when you realize that most of our troops have died in what you apparantly consider as a post-war period of adjustment.

2- OK, longer than our direct involvement in WW2, which did not start until the attack Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941.

3- Viet Nam? Another "disagreement" against a nation and people that had done us no harm.

4- There was a time when the "king" led his troops into battle, not just send them off to die.

Since there was NO danger to the United States from Iraq or it's citizens, our troops have been dying from day one not to protect America, but to satisify the personel ambitions of George Walker Bush.

And they are dying because George Bush had a stiffy for Saddam, and a hunger for petro-dollars.

Very shitty reason to lose your son, or husband, or father, or friend.

Roci said...

1. We have been at war with the nation of Iraq since 1990. This has been punctuated by them actually shooting at American servicemen EVERY DAY (weather permitting) between 1995 and 2001.

2. American lives are lost every day. Death is inevitable for everyone. Soldiers die in peacetime accidents and from disease every year, whether we are at war or not.

3. America was losing lives to the Huns long before pearl harbor. The declared start is seldom really the start of a war. And America has a long history of coming to the party late. It does not mean that history didn't exist until we were a part of it. If you are going to make pithy comparisons, you need to get your terms right.

4. You could also compare Korea, a war that still has not ended 50+ years later. over 50K American lives lost and uncountable billions spent in continuously occupying the Korean mainland for 50 years.

Bottom line your comparisons to WW2 are inaccurate but, more to the point, meaningless.

Roci said...

The only things that matters is:

1. Is the initial decision to go to war valid at the time you made it?

2. Is the cost you expect to pay reasonable given the benefit you expect to gain for the nation?

Reasonable people can argue from both sides of those positions. Arguments that make comparisons to other things that are demonstrably different are just pointless.

"...But we are inflicting far fewer casualties than the Visigoths did to Rome"