ThisNewsweek story via MSNBC says that the Army in Iraq is seriously short of armored vehicles in Iraq. Our seeming lack of resources for maintaining order there seems to be wearing on the populace who appear to be more and more willing to blame the US for their situation. And how can we blame them for that attitude?
It looks like GW, Rummy, Wolfie, et al fell for their own propaganda that we would be welcomed as “liberators,” that Iraq oil would finance the war, and that bringing a “democratic nation into the region” would be a piece of cake.
Instead, the oil facilities are routinely sabotaged. We aren’t viewed as liberators and things get stickier and stickier while the GW cabal complains that the “media,” whiney liberals to the last man, only print the bad news and none of the good. The plan seems to have fallen victim to GW’s unwillingness to probe deeply into proposals in advance instead of just going with his magnificent vision as he got it in one of his communes with God.
Will those who think the war was a good idea please step forward and explain why the best and maybe the only solution to the situation is to live with it until November, because there is no other choce, and then vote the stupid sons-a-bitches out on their rear ends.
But I can say that to THEM there’s only the option of going on with the occupation until the election. If the administration were to suddenly say, “Whoa! What were we thinking?” and pulled out they’d lose 40 states come November.
For political purposes, if for nothing else, they have to stay engaged in Iraq.
Throughout his presidency, Bush has made it clear that he pays no attention to polls, and that he is not particularly interested in what the American people think or want or need. The Administration wants what it wants, and it will support its claims and desires with whatever information, however sketchy or unreliable, supports the conclusions it has already made. The Bush Administration will decide what we need, thank you very much, don’t forget to vote in November.
I am also thinking of several senior military officials who caught a faceful a year ago for saying that we needed a hell of a lot more troops and materiel, and that the Bush administration’s timetable was not realistic.
This is what happens when you let the politicians run a war in absentia.
(Insert Vietnam parable here, which will be savagely attacked as irrelevant by pro-Bush hyperpatriots and Bush apologists)
The issue shouldn’t be “We started it… we need to stay on”. Of course the US has to stay on… the issue should be WHY THE FUCK was Iraq invaded ? To imply that Kerry might chicken out and leave Iraq and that Bush won’t is like saying Bush will fix his mess… but Kerry might not fix Bush’s mess !!! Ridiculous.
So yes Iraq is a SNAFU and there is no option of simply pulling out. The issue should be why the US invaded without a clear UN mandate… why so fast… why is CHALABI STILL GETTING MONEY FROM RUMMY… why doesn’t the US ever use diplomacy that doesn’t involve guns… why wasn’t there a post “liberation” plan !
Stay the course my ass… the plan ain’t working… change or die.
Just to nitpick – Bush may claim he pays no attention to the polls or what the public wants, but the reality is that the Administration is very sensitive to fine-tuning its message to make it easier to sell their policies to the American public. Whether it’s a phrase like “Axis of Evil” or the cover-up of “Made in China” boxes at a Presidential appearance, this Administration uses polls, test audiences, and other advertising/propaganda techniques for the maximum sell-through of its message.
Sometimes, especially when carried along by the passion of the moment, a guy’s syntax will become a little confused. I feel sure, friend Brutus, that if you study the whole message you can get a pretty good idea of what David S. is saying and what question he is asking. We do not require our President to be perfectly articulate. Can we require it of our fellow posters?
I do not feel that a poster can provide proper ‘thread leadership skills’ if they cannot clearly articulate their message!
Ahem.
Still, I don’t see what the hell he is going on about. I am no Grammarologist, but I appreciate it when enough effort goes into an OP to make it understandable.
Liberal Bush opponent here, and I confess I couldn’t quite make sense of the OP’s question either. Surely most Bush supporters would feel that “the best and maybe the only solution” would be to go on giving the Prez our hearty support and then vote him back in for four more years? Or perhaps instead the OP meant to ask:
[rephrase]
Will those who think the war was a good idea please step forward and explain why it is not the best and maybe the only solution to the situation to live with it until November, because there is no other choce, and then vote the stupid sons-a-bitches out on their rear ends, as we opponents of Bush and his war would prefer. In other words, why do you think your solution’s better?
[/rephrase]
I believe that I understood his point with no trouble at all and I am a college drop out. What he is saying, basically, is that we are stuck with the Bush Mess at least for the near future and that we should bend our efforts to ensuring Bush doesn’t have another term. What is implicit in the OP is that Bush’s successor with devise and implement a workable plan to extract the US from the morass of Bush’s making. How’s that?
Don’t worry about Brutus, I don’t. If there was an adequate defense for GW it would have been forthcoming, otherwise he can cavil at the way the question is asked. I will say, though, that Kimstu put in the not that I unfortunately omitted.
George W. Bush is a better choice than John Kerry when it comes to dealing with X.
What is this mysterious X? Why, pretty much everything, that’s what it is. The next time one of the increasingly desperate Left feels the need to start a ‘Holy Poop! Why would anyone vote for teh Shrubya LOL?!?!??’ thread, they can just apply the stock response.
For example:
Q: Regarding Iraq, why would anyone vote for George W. Bush?
A: George W. Bush is a better choice than John Kerry when it comes to dealing with Iraq.
Q: Regarding domestic issues, why would anyone vote for George W. Bush?
A: George W. Bush is a better choice than John Kerry when it comes to dealing with domestic issues.
Et cetera and so forth.
I’m open to be convinced. Most of my opposition to the current administration comes from economic issues. On foreign policy I’m certainly ‘in play’. I thought Afghanistan was the proper thing to do and was never convinced that Iraq was the proper thing to do.
Here is another reason why the only feasible plan for Iraq that I can see is to oust the GW cabal this fall.
On the front page of the Los Angeles Times for today (26 April) is a story headlined: Iraq’s Political Price Mounts. The gist of the story is that members of Congress are having a harder and harder time justifying what is going on to their home districts. You can find the Times online edition easily and it requires registration.
Down near the end is the following little item:
“The House last week passed a bill to ease the pressures of [sic] National Guard and Reserve forces by allowing them to withdraw money from retirement accounts without penalty.”
Out of pure generosity the Republican House is willing to allow those people to spend their retirement now in addition to taking them away for a year which has turned into 15 months and how much longer than that is anybody’s guess.
And this is all to bring a “democratic” nation to the area. A goal that was a pipe dream to start with if that “democratic” nation was supposed to have a western style representative government.
No, brer Brutus, it doesn’t work that way. Can you explain the reasoning which leads you to the [apparently insane, but perhaps defensible if supported by a coherent rationale] conclusion that GWBush is a “better choice for X”, or may we presume that you reached this conclusion without the aid of reason?
Assuming that X in this case is Iraq, it’s simple: GW will see this through to the necessary conclusion. Kerry? Who the fuck knows. Sometimes he sounds half-way sensible. Sometimes he sounds like a Moveon.org asshat. Sometimes he sounds like a shill for the UN. Kerry is trying to be all things to all people, which is asstastic, and leaves people wondering what the hell he really intends to do in Iraq.
But practically all modern wars are run by politicians, in absentia. The alternative is to let the generals in the field make political decisions, which is an even worse idea, as MacArthur’s performance in Korea demonstrates.
