The following are excerpts from Bush's radio address today:
"Our troops know that they're fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere to protect their fellow Americans from a savage enemy."
"They know that if we do not confront these evil men abroad, we will have to face them one day in our own cities and streets, and they know that the safety and security of every American is at stake in this war, and they know we will prevail."
Oh, come on, get over it. You've made one of the biggest blunders in recent American history. Move on.
I can't believe that Bush is still pushing this empty rhetoric on us. We went to Afghanistan to track down the perpetrators of 9-11. That was a good thing and bringing down the Taliban was icing on the cake.
But prior to Iraq invasion, the Hussein government was not connected in any substantial causal way with radical Islamic forces like Al-Qaeda. Iran or Pakistan would have been far more likely targets for a reason like this.
Hey I have cousins. Take my cousin Steve Schenck whom I've met maybe once and lives in California. We probably even look a little alike. So if I ever do anything to you, why don't you invade his house to get at me. We kinda look the same and we both live in America.
Or, hey, better yet. Let's just pick a weak country at random in the Middle East that we can easily defeat. The Islamic militants will no doubt come there to us to fight us instead of coming here. Hey, I bet we could easily beat Denmark. Let's invade Denmark and maybe they'll come fight us there instead of New York City.
But of course the vast majority of the people fighting us in Iraq would never have been able to get visas to come here. The vast majority of them are people we recruited by invading Iraq in the first place--we made them angry enough to push them into terrorism. Sure, some are in it for the long haul. But I bet that we helped most of those right now in Iraq finally find their calling from Allah.
And of course we will probably get more terrorist attacks here. What will Bush say then about how we've kept them away by giving them somewhere to fight us over there?
Congratulations, your idealistic plan to spread democracy in the Middle East has given birth to a bouncing baby Islamic theocracy where women have fewer rights than under Hussein and the radical Islam that Hussein suppressed is now in full force.
You're so clever I'm just beside myself in shock and awe.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Women have fewer rights now than under Hussein?
Pretend I'm ignorant to the current Iraqi lifestyle (which I am), and expand on that for me. I really need to learn more.
Hussein's government was a secular government (which is why bin Laden hated him--he was not serious Islam). Hussein assented to Islam of course, but about as much as a liberal mainline Christian church might. He had women on his cabinet and women were able to go to university and ascend the ranks. People were able to sell alcohol under him, etc...
Now it's looking like things are going increasingly hard core. We note that Iraq rejected the puppets we had offered them in the election.
Without in any way justifying Hussein's style of governing, I am really not convinced that the organized group violence we're seeing form, with heavy infiltration into the ranks of the police, is going to turn out any less murderous than the things that took place under Hussein.
It's looking to me that we have substituted one evil for another that is even more dangerous to us. We have made Iraq a breeding ground for terrorism (which it wasn't--Hussein was conventional evil) and substituted an Islamic theocracy for a secular society.
I could be wrong on all this, and I am not in any way supporting Hussein in these comments. But for me the jury is way out on whether we have simply gone from bad to worse in what we've done.
Since you don't like what Bush has done, how about putting Clinton back in charge. We know he won't do anything to offend or stop terrorist.
I never voted for Clinton when he was running for election. But I sincerely think we would be in a better place today internationally if he had been president after 9-11. I don't know whether he would have gone into Afghanistan--he might have. I agree with Bush on that score. But I think Bush's actions in Iraq have far outweighed negatively anything that Clinton might not have done in Afghanistan. And as a matter of course, Clinton actually did try (and flub up) an assassination attempt on bin Laden.
Thanks for expressing your point of view! It was a question, but I got the point :)
Post a Comment