about that iraq trip
Three things to consider about de facto warlord I mean President George W. Bush's "surprise" trip to Iraq.
1. It was more of a SECRET trip than a surprise. And why the secrecy? Because it is so very unsafe to give the insurgents any notice. Even 160,000 troops in Iraq can't make landing at Baghdad's airport safe, or make the ride from the airport to the Green Zone safe....
2. While visiting "Iraq" - actually, an isolated, heavily guarded American air force base in Anbar Province - Bush said "General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker tell me if the kind of success we are now seeing continues, it will be possible to maintain the same level of security with fewer American forces."
Is that the definition of success? That we can deploy fewer US troops and we can continue to have thousands of Iraqis die by violent means every single month? That's like a failing student telling his parents that he is confident he can spend less time studying and get the same grades - hardly a proud accomplishment.
3. He is STILL peddling the line of crap that somehow being in Iraq is defending the United States (I can't bring myself to say "homeland," sounds like "fatherland" or something similarly fascistically creepy), telling a bunch of Marines that they are helping keep the bad guys from using Iraq to "plot and plan attacks on our homeland."
Remember - the attacks of 9/11 had NOTHING to do with Iraq. Not one damn thing. The attacks against US troops in Iraq are overwhelmingly by Iraqis, who had absolutely NO record of anti-American terror before March of 2003, when we invaded. Despite Bush's empty assertions, there is precisely no evidence that troops in Iraq are in fact preventing attacks in America. Pure crap.
1. It was more of a SECRET trip than a surprise. And why the secrecy? Because it is so very unsafe to give the insurgents any notice. Even 160,000 troops in Iraq can't make landing at Baghdad's airport safe, or make the ride from the airport to the Green Zone safe....
2. While visiting "Iraq" - actually, an isolated, heavily guarded American air force base in Anbar Province - Bush said "General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker tell me if the kind of success we are now seeing continues, it will be possible to maintain the same level of security with fewer American forces."
Is that the definition of success? That we can deploy fewer US troops and we can continue to have thousands of Iraqis die by violent means every single month? That's like a failing student telling his parents that he is confident he can spend less time studying and get the same grades - hardly a proud accomplishment.
3. He is STILL peddling the line of crap that somehow being in Iraq is defending the United States (I can't bring myself to say "homeland," sounds like "fatherland" or something similarly fascistically creepy), telling a bunch of Marines that they are helping keep the bad guys from using Iraq to "plot and plan attacks on our homeland."
Remember - the attacks of 9/11 had NOTHING to do with Iraq. Not one damn thing. The attacks against US troops in Iraq are overwhelmingly by Iraqis, who had absolutely NO record of anti-American terror before March of 2003, when we invaded. Despite Bush's empty assertions, there is precisely no evidence that troops in Iraq are in fact preventing attacks in America. Pure crap.
posted by Don Q Blogger at 8:11 AM
1 Comments:
heh, I listen to the news and wonder, "So, are troops are helping the Iraqi people and preventing more attacks right?"
oh man. Isnt Bush the greatest? :P
love your blog.keep it up.
Post a Comment
<< Home