March 7, 2007
More Random But Insightful Thoughts
This is a dig at Democrats who tried to prevent Bush's troop "surge" in Iraq. But the Republicans are right. According to the Constitution Bush is "commander in chief" and for better or worse, has total control over the military (funny how Bush and the GOP stick to the Constitution when it suits their interests. But when it comes to rescinding habeas corpus for detainees, wiretapping without a warrant and Congressional oversight, they don't just circumvent the Constitution, they ignore
This is a dig at Democrats who tried to prevent Bush's troop "surge" in Iraq. But the Republicans are right. According to the Constitution Bush is "commander in chief" and for better or worse, has total control over the military (funny how Bush and the GOP stick to the Constitution when it suits their interests. But when it comes to rescinding habeas corpus for detainees, wiretapping without a warrant and Congressional oversight, they don't just circumvent the Constitution, they ignore it altogether).
But since Bush's use of the military has been, at best, reckless and incompetent, and has shown that he doesn't give a hoot about the men and women he sends to war (meanwhile, Bush and the Republicans have the nerve to say Democrats don't support the troops), the Democrats should put him on "unofficial probation," with the House and Senate Armed Services Committees not only watching his every move, but also providing extensive and continuous oversight.
Bush shouldn't even be allowed to visit the Defense Department without clearing it Sen. Levin first.
Even if there's a miracle and the violence and casualties are cut by say 50% - down from about 180 attacks a day to less than 100 - then what? Do we keep the extra troops there? If so, how much
longer? And how would that affect our military that is already stretched dangerously thin?
This just goes to show how little thought Bush gave to this "surge." Then again, if he spent more time planning this war then a family spends planning a vacation, maybe we wouldn't be in this mess.
Then again, if Bush was able to think at all...
Anyway, if there was a drastic and sustaining cut in the number of attacks, bombings and casualties by the summer, Bush would say - just like a compulsive gambler would say he's going to win the lottery within six months - that the Iraqis would by that time be able to take over. But that's never going to happen. If it could, then where the hell are they after three years of telling us "they're going to take over?"
Heck we can't even trust the Shiites since militia members, who for some reason don't need any training, are infiltrating the Iraqi (cough, cough) "security" forces!
But for argument's sake, let's say there is another miracle and the Iraqis did show that they were capable of handling security on their own; they did "stand up" and we "stood down." But that would be like the "substitute teacher" walking out of the room, giving Shiites free reign to go after Sunnis more then they do now, making this civil war worse.
So Bush obviously never thought this through.
Never let practical thought get in the way of, well, anything a Republican wants to do.
Alright, what happens if there aren't any miracles - Bush doesn't "win the lottery" within six months - and the "surge" doesn't work? Other then moronic spin saying it did (oh wait, he's already spinning), then what? Did Bush ever think of that? Unfortunately, he'll have to because the violence, despite the "surge," is getting worse and worse.
Oh wait, since Bush is unable to think...I think we're in trouble.
Ah, what about Joe Biden's plan and John Murtha's plan (which he came out with in 2005) and the Iraq Study Group's plan?
Never let the truth get in the way of Republicans making fools out of themselves.
Also, if the "Democrats didn't have a plan," then what was all that incredulous blustering about Democrats wanting to "cut and run?" That too was a plan.
Besides, what's so bad about "cutting and running" anyway? It's pro-life! How can
Republicans possibly oppose that (this is just more proof that if you're somewhere in between unborn and "clinically dead," Republicans don't give a damn about you)?
Never let logic get in the way of the GOP trying to rile up their base by insulting "liberals" (what a way to govern...on matters of life and death no less, huh?).
But why was it alright for Republicans to call for "cutting and running" from Somalia in 1993 and for Ronald Reagan to "embolden" Hezbollah by "cutting and running" from Beirut, just four months after the marine barracks were bombed in 1983?
Never let Republican hypocrisy get in the way of
"liberal" ridicule either.
(Note: in regards to the apparent contradiction of arguing against both the "surge" and "cutting and running," I'd never ridicule, insult or oppose anyone who would "cut and run" from Iraq because there's never dishonor from retreat or defeat; especially from a catastrophic war. I'll go into more detail when I offer "My Plan for Iraq" in an upcoming post.)
Great, so when Iraq becomes the petry dish/Grand Central Station/supermarket for terrorists - if it hasn't already become so - they'll be able to get around very nicely thanks to the American tax payer; not to mention whatever portion of that money winds up in their pockets (and the GOP has the nerve to say Democrats support the terrorists).
So let me see if I have this straight: no pot holes for the terrorists and maybe more cash for the terrorists that they'll use to kill American soldiers, while American infrastructure is crumbling and the deficit and debt are exploding.
Why does President Bush hate America, hate our soldiers and love the terrorists?
Okay, sounds good. Now for a logical question: just how do we accomplish that?
You know, just saying the word "victory" doesn't mean it can happen like flipping on a light switch.
Never let details get in the way of another moronic GOP talking point.
But do you know who else had this irresponsible, irrational and obstinate "win at all cost"/"we will not retreat" attitude in the face of reality? The Germans and Japanese in 1945. How well did their stubborn, nationalistic pride work out for them?
George Bush must be the only person in the world that never heard the phrase, "learn from history, or you'll be doomed to repeat it."
Now for reality. There won't be any "victory."
George Bush took stable secular society - and had Saddam Hussein in a box, right where we could keep an eye on him - and turned it into a violent, chaotic, destabilized, Iranian-influenced Islamic Theocracy that has taken women's rights away.
Great going Mr. President.
Gee, I feel safer already. Should we put Bush's bust on Mt. Rushmore now or wait until he leaves office?
I guess when you have to spin this war no matter what and have a grossly incompetent president that has created more
terrorists, increased the "terrorist threat," and made us less safe, you take whatever talking point you can get.
However, when Republicans brag about "getting Saddam," they never bring up what it's cost to get him...so far. So I did in 2005.
But I don't understand something. Why did we invade Iraq and topple Saddam Hussein's regime when Donald Rumsfeld was shaking hands with this "evil dictator" around the same time he was using WMDs against the Iranians, and just over a year after torturing and murdering "143 men and adolescent boys" in 1982? I'm not even going to try and figure out that Bush logic. Instead I'll let columnist Robert Scheer give it a shot, here and here.
And why wasn't Hussein's trial held at the World Court at The Hague where evidence of all his crimes could have been presented in a real court of law? By holding this farce...ah, I mean trial...in Baghdad and prosecuting Hussein strictly on those 1982 murders, it kept a tight lid on the rest of Hussein's history.
What were Bush and the Republicans trying to hide?
Bush and his administration are making a big
deal about Iranian-made bombs turning up in Iraq (although it sounds like the White House has backtracked a bit on this. But since they contradict their own spin and talking points from day to day, it can always change).
So Iran's sticking their nose in Iraq, huh? Well, what do you expect them to do? Just sit there while their enemy who they feel threatened by invaded their neighbor for no reason, occupies the country and insists they won't be leaving any time soon?
Of course Iran's going to try and influence Iraq's future; especially when 1) their Shiite brothers have power (if you want to
call it that) and therefore, have the perfect opportunity to "embolden" themselves by becoming the sole bully in the region, and 2) they can not only bloody the nose of the enemy who they feel threatened by, but also keep them bogged down in a quagmire, hoping they'll send a "surge" of troops to bloody them even more and bog them down even more.
Great going, Mr. President.
But Bush has some chutzpah feigning incredulousness at Iran for sticking their nose where he thinks it doesn't belong when it was alright for Bush to stick his nose in Iraq where it didn't belong.
Hmmm...and it was alright for Ronald Reagan to stick his nose into Nicaragua where it didn't belong by helping the Contras.
Heck, if Cuba invaded and occupied
Mexico, and a chaotic civil war ensued, you can be sure that the Republican Party, the pugnacious and duplicitous conservative media - Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, Fox News etc. - and their mindless and gullible audience would want us to stick our nose where it didn't belong and make Mexico the "51st state" amid all that disarray, or at least "get the oil."
And yet, Republicans are outraged at Iran for sticking their nose in Iraq's disarray so they can make Iraq a "Shiite controlled country," or at least "get the oil."
Never let Republican arrogance and blatant hypocrisy get in the way of America's interests either. And we wonder why the world thinks we're arrogant hypocrites.
"Saddam Hussein would still be in power. He would, at this point, be engaged in a nuclear arms race with Ahmadinejad, his blood enemy next door in Iran."
First, as far as Hussein still being "in power" is concerned - you see? - Cheney's bragging about "getting Saddam" but doesn't mention what it's cost.
Second, because of the UN sanctions and no-fly zones, Hussein was trapped and could barely
light his oven let alone "engage in a nuclear arms race."
And third, if Bush didn't invade Iraq and greeted Iran's extend hand in kind after 9/11 instead of slapping it away, 1) Ahmadinejad wouldn't have been elected, 2) we would have gotten much further in the war against al-Quaeda (remember them?) because Iran would have been helping us, 3) we could have opened normal diplomatic relations with Iran and 4) they probably wouldn't have started a nuclear program (which is all Ahmadinejad's doing) because Bush, therefore, wouldn't have been looked upon as the madman they think he
is.
Never let the facts get in the way of any Dick Cheney spin.
When the French decided not to join us on this suicide mission in Iraq, Republicans and their brainwashed base were livid at the French and ridiculed them unmercifully (hey, someone has to be set up as the bad guy to divert attention from Bush. But what do you expect from a childish party and childish base that does what they're told?). And they'll always hold a grudge because they felt France owed us for our help in WWI and WWII. But they fail to realize that 1) saving someone's country doesn't mean they're forced to reciprocate by risking the lives and limbs of their soldiers in a senseless and unnecessary war, and 2) there wouldn't be an America at all had the French not come to our aid in the 1770s.
Who "owes" whom? Maybe we're even.
Be that as it may. Now that the British are starting to unilaterally pull troops out of Iraq - without "benchmarks" - why do I get the impression that conservatives won't be ranting against them like they did the French...saying they're "cutting and running," they "don't support their troops," and
they're "emboldening the terrorists?"
By their own standards, not only should immature Republicans be eating "freedom" muffins nowadays, but with the Danish pulling out of Iraq as well, they should also be ordering "a freedom" at the local bakery.
Never let immature ridicule get in the way of setting you up to be a hypocrite (over and over again).
How dare he!
We have men and women getting maimed and killed every day and that's what he calls "sacrifice?"
What nerve. What stupidity. What an insult . What an embarrassment.
That sound you hear is every deceased president spinning in their graves. That other sound you hear is Republicans spinning.
March 31, 2007 insert: Bush Logic
During his State of the Union speech, Bush said "Iraq's leaders know that our commitment is not open-ended." (bold mine)
I see. Then why is he so cantankerous and vehemently opposed to setting a troop withdrawal date?
(Kudos to Jon Stewart for pointing that one out.)
+/- show/hide this post
