and smack Sean Hannity in the face. Ann Coulter sent out an email the other day saying the it was the Democrats fault that we were failing in the Iraq war. Similarly, President Ford's hands were tied when South Vietnam asked for our help. Even though we had given them our word, the Dem's wouldn't allow the US to help. We didn't keep our promise and the rest of the world knew it. That does indeed suck, and was it the Dem's fault? Yes, and everyone else who was tired of seeing their sons and neighbors killed in a senseless war.
Last week, I heard Neal Bortz say that the reason we were losing Iraq was because our country was divided over the issue. When a caller brought to his attention the fact that we all agreed to find Osama Bin Laden and try to destroy Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, but we still haven't "won" there either. But Boortz was ticked that the caller had claimed to disagree with him about Iraq and then brought up Afghanistan. Personally, I think the caller made his point. I don't know how these folks sleep at night.
So, back to smacking Sean Hannity. His claim was the same as Ann Coulter's--it's the Democrats who want the US to fail in Iraq. They like to fail on purpose is the claim. So, Sean, what exactly would failure look like? What would success look like? Well, you probably can't answer either of those questions because no one has actually planned for either. So, in essence, I would say that "we" have planned to fail, because we failed to plan--period. It does sound stupid, but we all know that it's true so quit blaming the Democrats. In an interview with one Iraqi, it was said that the insurgency will continue to grow if the US doesn't leave. That doesn't sound as if it's a war on terror, it sounds like there are a bunch of folks in Iraq who are tired of the fighting and don't want us there anymore. Can anyone prove me wrong? (9/11 is not an acceptable answer.)
Then, I'm not understanding how folks can claim that "we were lied to and went into war under false pretenses". Hello, did you not watch Colin Powell on the tv when he was claiming that they believed there were WMD in Iraq? Did you seriously believe him? And did you miss the part where no one, NO ONE in the U.N. would form a coalition with us except for Britain? Granted, Britain is not like Luxembourg, but that was it. Don't act as though you didn't know that you were being lied to. It was blatently obvious why we were getting into this war from Day 1. I didn't agree with it, but didn't bash anyone once we were there. I was always taught to respect the commander-in-cheif even if I didn't agree with their policies. Okay, but here we are years later and no end is in site. They said there would be an end, but that was the day after the election. Then they postponed the State of the Union to tell us that they wouldn't be pulling out troops and then there was a bomb that went off at our Embassy in Greece. Oh, how convenient was that? The boogey man is out there. We've been telling you he's out there and see what he did? He bombed something else--that could have been in your town. Let's send more troops and spend more money to fight the invisible target.
If I sound crass, it's because I feel like I've taken crazy pills or something. Am I seriously the only person in the world who sees this? I know there's that crazy guy from "In Plane Site" who thinks that the sunspot on the side of plane as it's going into one of the twin towers is some piece of military equipment. But seriously, I don't see it. I don't see the thing that guy is talking about and I don't see a target either. What are we aiming for? Do we just think we are that much better than everyone else that we must force our ways on every other country in the universe?
I was downtown yesterday and I saw a lady looking out the bus window at me. She had that same look as the civilians in Iraq, or Sierra Leon, or anywhere else where there is fighting and hopelessness. Where they feel that they have no control over what will go on in their day. That's really the only difference between them and the rest of us. It's not really about money, it's about the inability to change the situation. I believe that is why the Iraqi's are fighting. They are fighting because they are angry about what their world is today, what it has become. It may have been bad with Saddam, but at least they knew what to expect (to a point). Now, it is mayhem, every hour of every day, of every week. Here, we take a gun and shoot our old co-workers or classmates, or commit suicide when life is overwhelming. Please tell me, what is worse?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Several points I wish to address in some semblance of order.
First. I think Gen. Powell address to the U.N. was the "truth" has he had been lead to believe. At that point in time, with the information carefully crafted to persuade him to conclude there really were WMD, he walked into the Hall to give his recitation of "the facts". It was only later did he learn he was also a victim of mis-information, as were the rest of us.
As an aside, it should be noted none in the military offered any credible objection to the White House after Gen. Powell was ordered to take a long walk off a short plank. Who gained by Powell's loss of prestige is for another post.
Second, I remember listening to Secretary Rumsfeld telling Tim Russert the White House had mis-judged the resistance we would met in Iraqi after the Fall. I immediately recalled a conversation I had with an Argentinian friend who had fled his country to escape political persecution. I asked him years later what had he been thinking when his homeland and the U.K. fought over the Falkland.
Islands.
He told he had been trying to get back home to fight, but the fighting had finished before he could return. I was stunned, for if a Brit bullet did not lay him done, then after the fighting was done, an Argentinian one would have. I asked why. He answered it was simple, his homeland had been attacked, and the Brits had to be pushed out. Yes, there was a bit of twisting of the facts by Juan, but the point is nonetheless valid.
Moreover, augmenting the natural resistance to repeal a "liberator" who had stayed to long, was the statement by the President we - the United States of America - were on a crusade. This is not a word to win friends in the Muslim world. It is a great word to inflame old enemies and create new ones, and the latter would be outside the Middle East.
Third, and finally, we will have to stay to clean up the wasteland we have willed upon the Iraqis. As you wrote, at least with Saddam, they knew with what they were dealing with. With us, they only know we are building a huge fortress within Baghdad to protect ourselves while we let private forces injure without penalty in our name.
We talk of years till the end of the road appears on our horizon. To the Iraqis, it must seem as though they are outside observers of their own dismal future. They may be on the bus, but the tires are flat and the tank is without fuel.
Pjp
I remember watching Powell give his address to the nation about WMD. I thought it was obvious that he, much like the recent address given by Tim Geithner, that he was lying. End of story. I'm just giving you my gut, but I think that we should all listen to our guts a little more.
Post a Comment