As if the majority of Americans hadn't figured out the real reason we went into Iraq, have stayed in Iraq, and will continue to stay in Iraq no matter how fruitless and futile the effort...
"Leaving before we complete our mission would create a terrorist state in the heart of the Middle East, a country with huge oil reserves that the terrorist network would be willing to use to extract economic pain from those of us who believe in freedom," George Bush said Wednesday.
Well done George. You took a country with no real ties to global terrorism - one that was vehemently opposed to the greatest terrorist threat to America, Al-queda - and made it both a haven and training ground for terrorists.
Way to snatch a new millenium Viet Nam out of the jaws of overwhelming victory. You've effectively transformed our men and women in uniform from perceived liberators to perceived oppressors. Well done.
Oh and hey, how's that search for Osama Bin Laden going? Remember him? He's that tall, skinny terrorist leader with bad kidneys. You know, the one who masterminded the worst attack on America in history.
8 comments:
That's sort of hard to believe, seeing as gas prices are what they are, and if the president could get them lower, his poll ratings would sky rocket. Even if it were easy to believe we'd gone into Iraq for oil in the first place, it'd be harder to believe, after realizing that we weren't really benefitting from it that we were staying for that reason.
That said, removing a dictator who used to rip off people's genitals and poor acid in their wounds (see amnesty international's report for details) isn't exactly a bad thing. I mean, hey, if we removed Hitler from power because we wanted Germany's natural resources, it wouldn't be a bad thing - would it?
Ah...sort of the if you accidentally do something good does that make you good argument.
If I jump out of a dark alley brandishing a gun, planning on robbing your purse, and in the scuffle shoot a mass murderer walking by, does that make me a hero or a thief?
As to not benefitting, my representative in Congress made a third of my annual income overnight from his energy and Haliburton stocks. Now, I don't think he planned that, but I also don't think he's too disappointed by the outcome.
Not surprisingly he also made a similar gain in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.
I'm willing to bet that your Congressman owns health insurance stock too! Don't they ALL?
Not exactly. I'm not saying it makes anyone good. I'm saying that it's strange to criticize one man for greed, while he's removing a man guilty of attempted genocide and torture from power - whether or not his motives were good.
On the not benefitting part, I stand corrected, though I still suspect that Bush and most sitting senators and congressmen would benefit more from lower gas prices than they will
from Haliburton ties.
Leading up to the invasion of Iraq, anyone who as much as implied that oil was a big reason for invading was soundly shouted down. There was a concerted rally round the flag with nary a mention of the vast oil reserves we were going to be liberating other than those oil fields were going to help the new Iraq pay for the war we decided to wage.
Now, we're there and they don't much want us there any more.
The oil fields aren't at full capacity - or even close - and the instability we're causing has made the oil market a roller coaster ride.
Nothing we've done there has made our country any safer. And, if anything, it's created an advanced training ground for terrorists that didn't exist before and further exposed our vulnerability to attacks on our flow of oil.
I'm actually a bit relieved to hear some words of truth come from Bush's own lips. This is the most truth I've heard since he told that group of ultra-wealthy supporters that they were all the haves and that they, not all those dirty have nots, were his base.
Anyway, maybe war profiteering is okay as long as something good comes of it.
Tmom - By the way, yes he does. Lots of it. But then again, my Rep is the Tampon King - James Sensenbrenner - and is an heir to the Kimberly Clark fortune.
I don't know that you can say for sure that we're not safer.
The neo-conservative theory is that the world will be a safer place if we can bring non-developed countries into the global marketplace. If we've helped to create a system that will help Iraq enter that marketplace, it may mean that we are safer. I don't think it's easy to tell yet.
The neo-conservative theory is that the world will be a safer place if we can bring non-developed countries into the global marketplace.
Much like a Democrat...except an crotchity old liberal like me would want to bring them in as partners so that they could eventually compete.
Neo-cons want to bring them in all right...but as suppliers of raw materials and cheap labor - and certainly not in a way that they would ensure any independence from our shadow.
If we've helped to create a system that will help Iraq enter that marketplace, it may mean that we are safer.
Does that mean that one of the major producers of the second most traded commodity on the planet was never part of the world economy. Shocking that all that oil didn't drive an economy and society, albeit a rather unpleasant one led by a despot that we fully supported many years.
So, when those hospitals and such were hit by stray bombs and missiles, they weren't real hospitals with actual doctors and medicine and stuff? Weird.
It was also weird how some of those really tall buildings that made up the skyline of Baghdad were really just mud huts.
Yeah the world would be a safer place if everyone had a seat at the table - even if they had to sit at the kids table till they learned how to behave. It would be even safer yet if the leader of the free world wasn't running around the neighborhood waving a gun at all the neighbors that he doesn't like.
Even Bo and Luke Duke weren't redneck enough to believe that waving a gun at everyone was the best way to outsmart ol' Boss Hog. Every so often Daisy's got to do some of her sweet talkin' to smooth the waters.
Post a Comment