Bush’s pathetic words

Here’s what the president said Monday night:

“The safety of America depends on the outcome of the battle in the streets of Baghdad”

Here’s an exerpt from a well-written post by Robert J. Elisberg

Actually, no, it doesn’t. Anyone who thinks our safety “depends” on street fighting in Baghdad has a piss-poor, pathetic view of America and should be so ashamed that they stay in their room in disgrace. Of course, if they think that little of America, they probably are already hiding in their rooms.

Elisberg continues:

We’ve reached the point where the White House has become a scene out of the “Wizard of Oz.” A disembodied head blowing smoke and making ominous pronouncements, while begging us not to look at the little man behind the curtain.

The words are fantasy, the reality befuddled.

Here’s some more examples from Bush’s 9/11/06 speech, all of them equally pathetic:

We’re adapting to stay ahead of the enemy, and we are carrying out a clear plan to ensure that a democratic Iraq succeeds.  [Clear plan? Could you please remind us of the terms of this “clear plan”]

We’re helping Iraq’s unity government grow in strength and serve its people.  [It’s getting so good, that our military personnel are bringing their spouses and children over there to vacation while the soldiers are off-duty.  Oh, wait.  No,  I was thinking about Hawaii.]

Share
Share

Continue ReadingBush’s pathetic words

Bush gets another “F” in honesty

According to CNN,the Bush administration figured out all it needed to do, to substantially reduce the Iraq monthly death total, was stop counting all of those dead people.  You know how the number of deaths dipped sharply for August . . . well, it didn't really happen.   Here's how CNN reports…

Continue ReadingBush gets another “F” in honesty

A 9/11 message for President Bush

Dear Mr. President:

Five years ago, you told us you would “bring to justice” the perpetrators of 9/11.  Yet today, five years later, the man who is undisputed to have caused the 9/11 attack — Osama bin Laden — remains at large.  Instead of making it your mission — and that of the U.S. military — to capture or kill bin Laden, you have wasted America’s resources — and your own — on a wild goose chase in Iraq.  In the process, you have needlessly killed or maimed (both physically and emotionally) hundreds of thousands of innocent Muslims.  We must assume that some of these people — or their spouses, parents, children, friends, etc. — will harbor extreme hatred toward America for this loss. 

Indeed, we should not think otherwise given our own extreme reaction to the 9/11 attack.  We must also assume that some of these angry people will, in some way, at some point in their lives, support violence against America.  Whether it is by strapping a bomb to their chest and blowing up a street market, or merely providing a safe house to someone who does, we cannot tell.  But we do know, for certain, that violence begets violence, especially when the violence is perceived as unjust — which is exactly how your invasion of Iraq and many other misguided policies are perceived. 

The Bible tells us to love our enemies.  This probably does not mean bombing their families and neighbors, perhaps because doing so merely creates …

Share

Continue ReadingA 9/11 message for President Bush

House Intelligence Committee report in Iran

The U.S. House Intelligence Committee has issued this report on the strategic threat from Iran.  It doesn't contain much beyond what you've probably already seen in the news -- in fact, it contains many accusations that are similar to those the Bush Administration made about Iraq before the invasion, though without the…

Continue ReadingHouse Intelligence Committee report in Iran

Iraq: the Democrats don’t have a plan or a clue

What does it meant to “lead”?  According to dictionary.com, to “lead” means “to go before or with to show the way; conduct or escort: to lead a group on a cross-country hike.” 

Based on this criterion, the websites of prominent Democrats display a stark lack of leadership on Iraq.  A review of the websites of these Democrat “leaders” shows that they have no plan for dealing with the current occupation of Iraq. 

I’ll cut to the chase.  It seems as though we are headed for a repeat performance of the November 2004 election, where the plan of Democrats was to attack Bush as incompetent.  That strategy will work even less in 2006 than 2004, because Bush is a lame duck, already thinking about packing his cowboy boots to retire to Crawford.  Who cares about your concerns about a guy who is already on the way out?

The Democrats have certainly had lots of time to develop a plan on Iraq. After all, the war has been going as long as WWII, as indicated by this article from the Chicago Tribune:  

The United States has been fighting in Iraq since March 19, 2003, when President Bush launched Operation Iraqi Freedom with air strikes against Baghdad. Monday marks the 1,245th day of the Iraqi conflict. By that reckoning, Americans troops will have fought in Iraq for as long as they fought Germany in World War II.

But back to the failure of prominent Democrats to develop any plan.  A “plan”

Share

Continue ReadingIraq: the Democrats don’t have a plan or a clue