Reply With Quote
More BS by RG. Bush the man you love to hate. Two more years.....hehehehehe.
An original essay by R.G.
This week I saw Bush stoop to the level of lying that was formerly reserved for Bill Clinton's evasion about the the definition of "is".
President Bush doesn't want to see the situation in Iraq as a "civil war", despite what anybody with common sense could tell you. Killings, revenge killings, killings-that-revenge-the-revenge-killings, revenge-for-the-killing-of-my-cat-killings, death squads, armed & organized rebellions. Call it for what it is, civil war.
In the build up to the the Mother of All Grab-ass-ery, we were told that we would be welcomed as liberators and our troops expected to be home for Christmas.
I KNEW otherwise. Iraq was not going to be France in 1945, but rather Yugoslavia in 1994. I could see it coming like a horrible train-wreck that I couldn't stop. Bush got all the right people riled up and everybody scared to question him for not being patriotic enough. His supporters parroted this message at every opportunity, and we went off to a part of the world our Commander-in-Chief knew very little about, and his administration didn't know much more than he did.
Ever since then, I have given this whole mis-adventure about a 50-50 chance of coming off without sliding into a civil war.
Well ,that coin has landed and, unsurprisingly, the Iraqi people have lost. The same administration that didn't think our troops needed body armor, armored humvees, or enough troops to do the job, has cut the rug out from under its ground commanders yet again, by freezing funds for reconstruction.
The commanders on the ground have been putting in place a new strategy called "clear-hold-build". Clear an area, hold it, and build it up. Kind of hard to build when you can't have any money, isn't it? The new strategy is kind of like Bush's response to Katrina. "Clear-hold-hope".
I can't do anything but shake my head that this guy's die-hard fans just can't realize how f***ed up things are over there. Bush may have deluded himself into thinking he did the right thing, but I kind of wonder if even he believes his spin anymore. Better that then to admit you were wrong and hurt the party, I guess.
I liked Clinton and still do. But even I had to shake my head at the tape in which he debates the definition of the word "is". The same feeling plays all over when I hear Bush swear up and down, wagging his finger at us that "this... is... not... a... civil... war..." starts sounding su iously like "I... did... not... have... sexual... relations...".
Only this time, we get tax hikes, thousands of our own dead soldiers and tens of thousands of dead Iraqis, who are genuinely starting to wonder if Saddam was really that bad. I would rather GW have gottena bj from an intern and gotten whatever-it-is out of his system, than to have given 2,000+ and counting of our troops to the altar of stupidity.
The really sad thing is that I don't have a better alternative to staying and trying to glue the peices back together. I would however get somebody with a clue in to do it. Rumsfeld isn't that guy. He got a little respect from me when he helped carry stretchers from the Pentagon on 9-11, but just because he might be a decent guy at heart doesn't mean he is competant enough to make life and death policy decisions. "Good job, Brownie..." ring a bell? Loyalty is one thing. Loyalty to idiots is another.
Well there it is.
I will predict a further escalation of the civil war in Iraq. This administration just has not demonstrated the competance that might avert it, so hold on to your hats, and say good-bye to your sons and an effective military. This war will continue to eat our military from the inside out, both in terms of using up people and equipment faster than those at the top will know or even admit to even if they did know.
We will let the Iraqis do more of the fighting, and that will eventually lead to a splintering of the military, and then not even Bush will be able to deny the reality of his failure and incompetance.
This administration COULD avert that escalation, and even roll back the tension. But, sadly, I know it won't. When the finger wagging starts, you know the bull is coming, and this administration has been wagging it's finger at us for a looong time.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 03-22-2006 at 10:03 PM.
More BS by RG. Bush the man you love to hate. Two more years.....hehehehehe.
(shrugs)
Actually closer to three.
It really isn't Bush himself that I hate. It is his sheer incompetance I can't stand.
The GOP keeps defending him and won't admit he's f***ed up in a lot of different areas, with the message that the Republican party is perfectly willing to put its own interests above the public good.
That is part of the definition of modern conservatism: reward incompetance if it's your guy in the white house, because it is part of that "win-at-all-costs" and ends justifying the means. Ultimately this point to the fact that conservatism lacks any moral base, and sooner or later people will realize how morally bankrupt the whole movement really is.
The same goes for your party. SOrry you cant fool anyone into thinking the democrats are prinicipled.
I
pron.
Used to refer to oneself as speaker or writer.
n. pl. I's
The self; the ego.
i or I
n. pl. i's or I's also is or Is
The ninth letter of the modern English alphabet.
Any of the speech sounds represented by the letter i.
The ninth in a series.
Something shaped like the letter I.
iso- or is-
pref.
Equal; uniform: isobar.
Isomeric: isopropyl.
Is.
abbr.
Bible. Isaiah2.
island.
isle.
.is
abbr.
Iceland (in Internet addresses).
<standard> International Standard.
Intermediate System.
It "is" politics. The Demos defended Clinton to the end even after he sold out the true believers on his side to win, just like, oh, someone else. The 'lesser of two evils' card seems to play well.
It's okay to be ty if everyone else is ty too. The New American Way?
eh, I'm not excusing it. It is what it is.
I'll bet anyone $1,000 xray never read the first post
I have a feeling the only thing that can unite the Republicans and Democrats is someone calling them both out on their inep ude... at which point they'll join hands to dig up irrelevant "dirt" to be used to discredit their critic. Once said critic is completely abolished, they will merrily resume their "your party is tier than mine" circle jerk.
The same goes for your party. SOrry you cant fool anyone into thinking the democrats are prinicipled.
I have met some very principled democrats, you can have your own opinion as to the character of democrats and that is all well and good.
As a Democrat, if a Democratic president displayed the sheer inep ude that Bush has, I would be among those who would be unhesitant to call him on it.
The fact that conservatives obviously cling to some notion that this guy is doing a good job is a very good measure of either a) ignorance, or b) moral bankruptcy.
The only way for things to really change is for the apathetic heads who sit on the sidelines and think that they can't do anything to get off their asses and get involved.
Not saying you are such, but that is the formula for real change is, in my opinion.
Yeah, I read it. Want to send the money to a drop box or will you do
as most of you kindred and say I don't have it. I read all the "stupids"
and the rest of the junk.
Actually I used the word "incompetant" more than stupid.
"Negligent" would also work.
Bump.
Good post at the beginning of the thread.
Regarding the above quote, in reality one should be harder on the corrupt or incompetence within your own party than the opposing party. For instance there is this crooked Democrat in Louisiana (in the U.S. House) who the Democrats need to nail to the wall. If you want to run against the Repub corruption, you have to clean you own house first. I realize the Republican corruption is larger and more pervasive but as long as you have someone on your side that you won't go after, you give your opponent the opportunity to call the corruption bipartisan.
Yup. The biggest threat to our democracy isn't fundamentalist nutbags of one religion or another, communists, or fascists. It is apathy.
You would win. I got as far as: "President Bush doesn't want to see the situation in Iraq as a "civil war", despite what anybody with common sense could tell you. Killings, revenge killings, killings-that-revenge-the-revenge-killings, revenge-for-the-killing-of-my-cat-killings, death squads, armed & organized rebellions. Call it for what it is, civil war." (actually, I did
scan the rest of it, but not read it)
The man already already was putting Bush down. He considers the Iraq war
as a civil war. I don't. That simple. He considers common sense as hating
Bush.
Therefore my thought on his little essay, which wasn't very original,
more BS.
Ok, then answer this ONE question:
When will you think it is a civil war?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
