Democrats & Liberals Archives

All Hat No Cattle: George's ride to Iraq

In “Why men don’t ask for directions..” it was noted that the cause for depression is low self-esteem and low self-esteem is a result of unrealistic expectations. These unrealistic expectations create situations preventing coherent thought processes and derailing the intellectual progress. This, in a nut shell, is the reason why George W. Bush went to Iraq and refuses to see the undeniable truths and why he won’t hear alternative points of view.

George W. Bush is a man; that's for darn sure. He's also a man that thinks that he's a Texan. Whether or not GWB is actually a Texan isn't the issue; he believes he is. Sure he was born in the Northeast and schooled in nation's finest Northeast academies but in the world of macho fantasy, he's the Texan that knows how to ride the horse into the town, rescue the maiden and yell "yippee-kai-yay" into the sunset. He's our President and he has a serious psychological condition.

George W. Bush led the US into Iraq by rounding up the posse (Senate and House) and tellin' the town folk (the American people) that he knew the bad man, in the black hat (Saddam), was planning on killing everyone. Like others suffering from Munchauser by proxy syndrome, Bush perceived an alternative reality that didn't exist. He sought out such horrific conclusions to prey on the weaknesses and vulnerabilities of the town folk that simple statements like:
"Saddam has chemical and biological weapons" and
"The Iraqi Regime is a threat of unique urgency" and this wonderful one:
"There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists", led the town folk into a hysterical panic.

Remember the run on duct tape and plastic sheathing? Who can blame the town folk for believing the man in the white hat?

When the town folk got their dander up based on George's stories of woe, they did so out of a fabricated fear. So when George's perceived reality didn't pan out, and he tried a little Texas side-step by pushing the blame somewhere else, namely to his Intelligence community, the town's folk of course didn't take too kindly to this. This is where George's hat fell off. Because a real Texan steps up, takes responsibility and fixes what he broke.

George just kept twirling his Red Ryder Ranger gun and yelling "Yippee Kai-Yay".

All hat no cattle.

We all know it when we make mistakes. We don't like it, but we know the mistakes that we've made. Whether it's when we pass an exit that we should have taken or turned left when we should have turned right; it's still a mistake. Not changing course compoundd the mistake; it never fixes it. So when the numbers of casualties continue to rise and instability is the norm, it's time to say that it's broke. No dancing. No side-stepping. No clichés about evil. Just recognize the mistake and fix it.

Saddle up Mr. President and don't forget your hat.

Posted by john trevisani at September 27, 2005 11:05 AM
Comments
Comment #82165


Do you have any suggestions? Do you want to debate the reasons for the war and what it looked like in 2003? Do you assume Saddam was no danger? Was Bush the only one who thought that? Would you prefer to leave Saddam in power? Do you advocate we leave Iraq today? There are lots of good things to debate, but this is just cheerleading for the Bush haters.

I know people on the left enjoy insulting GW Bush, but this is just old news. You at least need to hook it to some new outrage. I suppose this is all meant as an invitation for everyone to write in their own Bush stories. It is sort of an inside joke – a liberal thing.

Posted by: Jack at September 27, 2005 11:20 AM
Comment #82169

Jack, it’s an oldie, but a goodie. :)

jt, you’re right. President Bush may have a hat, but there aren’t any cattle on his estate (it’s not a ranch if theres no cattle). And I’ll bet he’s never once burned his hands on a rope.

But Jack’s right about one thing, what’s your angle? Are you looking for a Plan B from the President?

Posted by: American Pundit at September 27, 2005 11:40 AM
Comment #82177

Jack:
DC hosted this weekend a very large demonstration to promote getting out of Iraq. This is the basis for the piece; to promote the idea of exiting from Iraq.

Do you want to debate the reasons for the war and what it looked like in 2003?
It looked in 2003 the same way it looked in 1998. No new information was available. Bush used estimates as facts.
Do you assume Saddam was no danger?
His neighbors thought so. The Arab nations in 2000 invited Iraq back to Arab Nations summit, it was the first time since the Kuwait invasion.
Was Bush the only one who thought that?
No, of course not. This was a neo-con plan and Bush believed strongly in their doctrine. He, however, was the person that is responsible for making the decision.
Would you prefer to leave Saddam in power?
The sanctions worked; that’s been proven. There was no imminent need to remove a standing leader from its country.
Do you advocate we leave Iraq today?
Absolutely. When you make a mistake do you keep making the same mistake over and over? Posted by: John Trevisani at September 27, 2005 12:01 PM
Comment #82185

I always wondered how to spell “yippee-kai-yay”…

But, Bush won’t saddle up on anything other than Marine 1 and hope Rove can pull his butt out of the fire again. With approvals now in the 30%s, worse than Nixon at the height of Watergate, it’s not a fire, it’s a conflagration. Personally, I hope he and his neocon sh*tforbrain chickenhawks get burned beyond repair.

Posted by: Dave at September 27, 2005 12:27 PM
Comment #82187

Jack, as long as we are losing soldiers in Iraq, it is not old news. We, the majority of the American people now believe we should be exiting Iraq. The only differences amongst that majority is how soon and what preceding criteria must be met.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 27, 2005 12:30 PM
Comment #82190

AP:
“jt, you’re right. President Bush may have a hat, but there aren’t any cattle on his estate (it’s not a ranch if theres no cattle). And I’ll bet he’s never once burned his hands on a rope.”

Yeah, but I’ll bet that chainsaw of his has glowed red-hot in his mits whilst brush-cuttin’ for the media folk!

“But Jack’s right about one thing, what’s your angle? Are you looking for a Plan B from the President?”

There is no Plan B. Never was. It’s all “stay the course” whether that course is right or wrong, effective or ineffective. And forget “dead or alive” for Bin Laden — that was all hat and no cattle, too.

JT:
“DC hosted this weekend a very large demonstration to promote getting out of Iraq. This is the basis for the piece; to promote the idea of exiting from Iraq.”

It was HUGE! All the newspapers have downgraded the number of people who marched on Washington (like they always do) by claiming that one hundred thousand showed up. But now the organizers are putting their best guess estimate at three hundred thousand. I’ve heard that someone on CNN doubled that figure at one point, speculating that the crowd might have been as as large as six hundred thousand. Sadly no one in the media can speak with any real authority on the subject however, because not one of their cameras showed up to film the event — not even C-Span was there.
I marched in San Francisco — the largest one (for the Iraq war) to date here — even bigger than before the war. Word on the street is that over twenty thousand people marched from Mission Delores Park to the rally in Jefferson Park - all I can say is that it was amazingly crowded.
Bring The Troops Home Now!

Posted by: Adrienne at September 27, 2005 12:44 PM
Comment #82193

Adrienne

I didn’t wander down for the actual demonstrations, but the pictures did not show a big march although they tried to. I am familiar with those streets. They were not full of people. Even the sympathetic telephoto lenses couldn’t make it seem like it. I have been to many protests and rallies. The organizers always aim high and estimate higher. I actually did see the million mom march. You could have drawn a bigger crowd giving away free soft drinks. We have lots of these kinds of things.

The only time anybody actually got in my way was when they were filming an episode of West Wing near the Lincoln memorial. I was running around and noticed a lot of bums sleeping on the grass. This is no longer normal for Washington. When I turned a corner I saw why. They were taping West Wing about homelessness and they had to bring a bunch in for the effect. Protests are a lot like that. What is that? A lot of hat and no cattle?

David

You can’t make policy by opinion poll. When most people supported the war, did that change your opinion? Polls show that 2/3 of Americans oppose gay marriage. Do we just assume they are right? Vox populi = vox dei every week, no matter how it changes (and who asks the questions)

Did it change your opinion even when most people voted for GW?

Posted by: Jack at September 27, 2005 1:13 PM
Comment #82194

BTW Adrienne

I am talking about Washington march. I assume you are correct about SF and I have no expertise about that.

Posted by: Jack at September 27, 2005 1:15 PM
Comment #82195

Adrienne:

Sadly no one in the media can speak with any real authority on the subject however, because not one of their cameras showed up to film the event — not even C-Span was there.

C-SPAN actually did cover it. They covered all of the main speeches, Jesse Jackson, Cindy Sheehan, etc.. C-SPAN actually covered the ‘anti-anti-war’ gathering by the right-wing radio personalities. They were evidently situated across the street and had about 50-100 people there, yet they had C-SPAN coverage. In fact, there was a ‘band’ that played at the end of the coverage (they just sang and played air guitar) and before they sang, they said (i’m paraphrasing) i realize that there isn’t a lot of us here, but i want them across the way to hear us.” It was sad.

Posted by: john trevisani at September 27, 2005 1:29 PM
Comment #82198

Jack:
“I didn’t wander down for the actual demonstrations, but the pictures did not show a big march although they tried to. I am familiar with those streets. They were not full of people.”

The D.C. Chief of Police wouldn’t agree with you, Jack.
From a Washington Post article Anti-War Fervor Fills The Streets - Demonstration Is Largest in Capital Since U.S. Military Invaded Iraq:

Protest organizers estimated that 300,000 people participated, triple their original target. D.C. Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey, who walked the march route, said the protesters achieved the goal of 100,000 and probably exceeded it. Asked whether at least 150,000 showed up, the chief said, “That’s as good a guess as any.

“It’s their protest, not mine. It was peaceful — that’s all I care about,” Ramsey said.

John:
“C-SPAN actually covered the ‘anti-anti-war’ gathering by the right-wing radio personalities. They were evidently situated across the street and had about 50-100 people there, yet they had C-SPAN coverage.”

That’s really, really screwed up. But f*ck em! We’ve got the internet… Thanks Al Gore! ;^)

Posted by: Adrienne at September 27, 2005 1:52 PM
Comment #82204

Adrienne,

Let me guess you voted for the war hero kerry. Bush won get over it.

Posted by: Thomas at September 27, 2005 2:28 PM
Comment #82205

100K is a good number. Although you think with the professional organization & funding they could do better. But read carefully what you wrote. The protestors claimed to get 300k The chief just went along with the premise of second question. Authorities in Washington are afraid to question protest numbers ever since the Park Service estimated that only about 300K came to the million man march.

People enjoy protests. You would think that they could win elections, but maybe that’s harder.

Posted by: Jack at September 27, 2005 2:33 PM
Comment #82206

Hmmm, speaking of not wanting to hear alternative views…

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 27, 2005 2:38 PM
Comment #82207

John
Honestly,your article was probably the most pathetic piece I have read since I began posting on this site.

It offers not one concrete idea worthy of discussion and is dripping with partisan envy.

If I didn’t know berret,I’d swear that Al Gore wrote the piece.

You can do much much better.

You probably were thinking about the Red Sox-Yankees this weekend,right?

Posted by: sicilian eagle at September 27, 2005 2:44 PM
Comment #82208

So let me get this straight the whole argument for staying in Iraq is “Well YOU think of something to get us out this mess I got us into.”?

Posted by: chantico at September 27, 2005 2:49 PM
Comment #82210

Thomas:
“Bush won get over it.”

Where have I heard this before? Oh, that’s right, it’s ALL YOU EVER HAVE TO SAY here.
Maybe us liberals should just start our own mantra? Such as:
Bush lost in Iraq - get over it, and bring our troops home.

Jack:
“100K is a good number. Although you think with the professional organization & funding they could do better.”

Well, since the economy is doing so badly for the majority of American’s, and the expense of fuel has gone up to the point where flying or taking a bus across the country has become extremely cost prohibitive, the fact that so many still felt strongly enough to show up in DC to protest against this war is no doubt really saying something. Not that the president cares, of course.

“People enjoy protests. You would think that they could win elections, but maybe that�€™s harder.”

I guess we’ll see in ‘06 and ‘08 won’t we?

Posted by: Adrienne at September 27, 2005 3:10 PM
Comment #82212
Not that the president cares, of course.

It’s not that he doesn’t care, it’s just that he thinks your solution is wrong.

Protest all you like, that is (of course) your right as an American. But bringing the troops home right now is not the correct way to go about this. I want them home also, but blindly pulling the plug now would create FAR more trouble in the long run.

BTW… Who organized that protest anyway? I believe it was International A.N.S.W.E.R. And who is their biggest backer? Oh look, it is the Worker’s World Party. A Communist organization who supports wonderful people like Kim Jong Il and Fidel Castro. Well, pardon me if I don’t believe that some of those who organized this protest have different motives than to “Bring our soldiers home safe”.

Posted by: BradM at September 27, 2005 3:29 PM
Comment #82213

Protest all you like, that is (of course) your right as an American. But bringing the troops home right now is not the correct way to go about this. I want them home also, but blindly pulling the plug now would create FAR more trouble in the long run.

I’m now asking this question: what is the “FAR more trouble” that would arise in Iraq if we brought all the troops in Iraq home now?

Posted by: steve at September 27, 2005 3:42 PM
Comment #82215

BTW… Who organized that protest anyway? I believe it was International A.N.S.W.E.R. And who is their biggest backer? Oh look, it is the Worker’s World Party. …

I don’t give a damn who organized it — look who showed up: over 100,000 normal, average, every day U.S. citizens. I’d like to see the supporters of the war turn out half as many people to support the continued U.S. presence in Iraq. They can’t — because support for this war has been shallow from the beginning.

Posted by: steve at September 27, 2005 3:49 PM
Comment #82216

Brad,
Organization for the protest was a joint effort between A.N.S.W.E.R. (which is “a coalition of hundreds of organizations and prominent individuals and scores of organizing centers in cities and towns across the country”.) and United For Peace And Justice (which is “a coalition of more than 1300 local and national groups throughout the United States who have joined together to oppose our government’s policy of permanent warfare and empire-building.”)

“Well, pardon me if I don’t believe that some of those who organized this protest have different motives than to “Bring our soldiers home safe”.”

Well, pardon me if I don’t give a flying hoot who’s doing the damn organizing for the protest when our soldiers are dying and being maimed for a war based on lies and Neocon greed.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 27, 2005 3:50 PM
Comment #82218

Steve

People like to compare Iraq to Vietnam. The only similariyt is that America is involved and a withdrawl would have consequences. Our withdrawl from Vietnam emboldened the bad guys, sent thousands of people out in the ocean in open boats, permitted Pol Pot in Cambodia who killed millions and demoralized our country. This would be worse.

Consider oil. People are right when they say that the war was about oil, but they are wrong about the details. We didn’t go to war to steal Iraqi oil and we (the U.S.) won’t be getting much of it. But oil is money and it is power. It supplies the bad guys with the ability to do bad things. That is why Saddam was more dangeous than other thugs like Mugabe or Castro. (and it is what makes Hugo potentially so troublesome).

If Iraq goes to hell, so does the world economy, since it would also destabilize everyone around it and so much of the world’s energy is from there. Vietnam, was by comparison a local affair.

Our intervention in Iraq gave us the chance to forestall or even avoid that scenario. The Middle East was in a horrible state. The reckoning was on the way. It still is, but now we have some chance of mitigating the fallout.

Posted by: Jack at September 27, 2005 4:00 PM
Comment #82219

I really have a problem with the way this piece uses the language of mental illness. John T is almost practicing medicine without a license on a person who is not his patient when he talks about the president having a serious psychological condition or suffering from Munchauser (actually Munchausen’s) by proxy. Sometimes a liar is just a liar and we don’t need to medicalize people’s dishonest behavior or bad judgement.

Posted by: Tim at September 27, 2005 4:06 PM
Comment #82220

Jack wrote:
If Iraq goes to hell, so does the world economy, since it would also destabilize everyone around it and so much of the world’s energy is from there. … Our intervention in Iraq gave us the chance to forestall or even avoid that scenario.

So, in your opinion, the U.S. military invaded and is occupying Iraq to save the world economy?

Forgive me for pointing this out, but Iraq already is in “hell”.

Steve

Posted by: steve at September 27, 2005 4:08 PM
Comment #82221

It’s not just the cowboy ridding into town… it’s the ass he rode in on (I’m betting Cheney’s back is killing him… maybe that’s how he messed up his knees…???)

Posted by: tony at September 27, 2005 4:18 PM
Comment #82222

No - it is not. More people died their during an average Saddam year than now. North Korea is close to being hell on earth. Darfur or Zimbabwe can be.

I did a long piece on why we invaded Iraq. It is in the archives. The world economy is also a good reason.

Posted by: Jack at September 27, 2005 4:22 PM
Comment #82223

Jack wrote:
Our withdrawl from Vietnam … permitted Pol Pot in Cambodia who killed millions and demoralized our country.

Worth pointing out: Cambodia was a relatively peaceful country without a serious communist insurgency until the U.S. decided, in 1970, to widen the war into Cambodia as a way to “win” in Vietnam.

Posted by: steve at September 27, 2005 4:24 PM
Comment #82224

Jack,
You’re right, withdrawal from Iraq would have consequences, and the consequences would be remarkably similar to Vietnam.

Once the US withdrew from Vietnam, the Chinese Communists and Vietnamese Communists went to war with each other. Our enemies fell to fighting one another, according to ethnic & internal ideological schisms, rather than attacking other capitalist countries.

Withdrawal from Iraq would also result in our opponents- Sunnis, Shias, and others- fighting one another in a civil war. Islamic fundamentalism would collapse in a bloody heap. It would be awful, but it would put an end to the view that the US is the primary enemy, as they would fight among themselves.

But what about oil? You are fond of advocating a market solution. Why not let the market resolve the problems posed by a Middle East fallen into utter anarchy?

While it may be immoral & despicable, it will certainly work.

Posted by: phx8 at September 27, 2005 4:25 PM
Comment #82225

Jack wrote:

I did a long piece on why we invaded Iraq. It is in the archives. The world economy is also a good reason.

I read your piece. It only says that if we didn’t invade Iraq something “bad” would happen. But you don’t say what that something “bad” is. Please elaborate.

As for the “world economy” argument, I don’t buy that for a second. Please make your case about what will happen to the world economy if — sorry — now that — Iraq has gone to “Hell.”

For starters, we can easily wean ourselves off of dependence on imported oil if we simply use it less, and more efficiently when we do (raise CAFE standards and use mass transit for one).

Posted by: steve at September 27, 2005 4:33 PM
Comment #82227

Steve:
“Forgive me for pointing this out, but Iraq already is in “hell”.”

Yup. Not only are they in hell, but all our taxpayer dollars that were intended to give the Iraqi forces the chance to take over for our troops in their fight for freedom and democracy has been stolen.
Nice oversight there, Neocon’s. Mission Accomplished.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 27, 2005 4:41 PM
Comment #82231

The weekend demonstration that you guys are speaking about, is that the one that Cindy Sheehan got arrested at?

Also, let’s not leave out the fact that there were 5 or 600 war/Bush supporters on hand to demonstrate.

Posted by: steve smith at September 27, 2005 5:11 PM
Comment #82233

Steve Smith wrote:
The weekend demonstration that you guys are speaking about, is that the one that Cindy Sheehan got arrested at?

Cindy Sheehan got arrested at a sit-in in front of the White House on MONDAY, not saturday’s rally and march. Had the rally/march been advertised as “civil disobedience” I doubt you would have seen the turnout that there was.

Also, let’s not leave out the fact that there were 5 or 600 war/Bush supporters on hand to demonstrate.

Yes, I saw a couple of ‘em. The ones I saw were holding signs questioning our patriotism. I chanllenge them to come out in the numbers that those opposed to the war can produce.

Steve (K)

Posted by: steve at September 27, 2005 5:24 PM
Comment #82236

Steve (K):

Cindy Sheehan got arrested at a sit-in in front of the White House on MONDAY, not saturday’s rally and march. Had the rally/march been advertised as “civil disobedience” I doubt you would have seen the turnout that there was.

Did you know that the Gaelic word for Peace is “siochain”, phonetic pronounciation “sheehan”?

Steve Smith:
“Also, let’s not leave out the fact that there were 5 or 600 war/Bush supporters on hand to demonstrate.”

I’ve heard about 200 pro-war/Bush supporters were there on Saturday and an equal number for their counter demonstration on Sunday. Sadly, it seems they had expected around 20,000 to show up.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 27, 2005 5:31 PM
Comment #82238
normal, average, every day U.S. citizens

Are you blind?
Did you see the pictures?

Posted by: Cliff at September 27, 2005 5:36 PM
Comment #82263
I don’t give a damn who organized it
Well, pardon me if I don’t give a flying hoot who’s doing the damn organizing

Wow… who can argue with that logic… The enemy of my enemy must be my friend right? Apparently the end always justifies the means.

Posted by: BradM at September 27, 2005 8:16 PM
Comment #82268

Re going to demonstrations: I have better things to do. Most demonstrations are worth seeing, but not worth going to see. Because my running trails go across the Capitol Mall, I sometimes run into them - literally. I once tripped over a sign some idiot thrust under my feet and had to break it in half before running along, but otherwise I don’t have much interaction with them. They are tiresome and ineffective. I watch election returns, not street theatre.

Re oil - can we do without Middle Eastern oil? Of course we can. But the economic cost will be very high. Economic costs also have human costs. As we all know, “the poor” suffer the most and the economic downturn caused by about 25% of the world’s oil coming off the market would literally kill many of them.

Phx8 - I think your bloody-minded scenario is possible. I wouldn’t greet it with enthusiasm, however. Not all these people are our enemies and these kinds of wars have ways of spilling over. A partition of Iraq would be a possible outcome, but we need not have a free for all.

The Middle East is headed for trouble. It was before the invasion; it is still. The only reason we were not alarmed is that we got used to it. But think about the situation before the invasion for just a minute. Make a list of Arab Democracies. Notice that is you sum up all the GNPs of all the Arab countries, it is less than that of Spain - and that includes oil wealth. Remember that more books are translated every year into Greek than into Arabic. Consider that dissidents from the region destroyed the World Trade Center and promised other attacks. Remember that U.S. and UK planes were patrolling the skies of Iraq to keep Saddam from killing his people and that U.S. forces were stationed in Saudi (bin Laden’s big complaint) to keep Saddam in shape. How long could this situation continue?

Posted by: Jack at September 27, 2005 8:35 PM
Comment #82271

Jack:

You forget that most of those Tyranical MiddleEast Countries were propped-up by the US.

In any case, we cannot leave Iraq. While I believe Iraq is a Republican War and such, I believe that the situation will only get worse if we leave.

Posted by: Aldous at September 27, 2005 8:48 PM
Comment #82280

Cliff wrote:
normal, average, every day U.S. citizens

Are you blind?
Did you see the pictures?

Yes Cliff, With my own eyes! I was one of them. Spoke to schoolteachers, Veterans, accountants, you name it. They were there. You gotta stop relying on Fox news for you media coverage!

Jack wrote:
Re going to demonstrations: I have better things to do.
Jack’s comment here supports what I said above: support for this war is very shallow.

Posted by: Steve at September 27, 2005 10:03 PM
Comment #82283

Steve,

You gotta stop relying on Fox news for you media coverage!

You’re partly correct, I did see them on Fox News. I also saw them on CNN and NBC.
(Surprise, some conservatives do go wide in their news sourcing - I do not classify these three as being wide by the way)

Nice try though…

Posted by: cliff at September 27, 2005 10:14 PM
Comment #82285

Steve,

Jack wrote: Re going to demonstrations: I have better things to do. Jack’s comment here supports what I said above: support for this war is very shallow.

I fail to see the logic behind this comment. Jack stated that protesters are nothing more then “street theatre”. People who support this war will not protest the protesters. They don’t have time, they’re working and taking care of their families.

But hey, let them protest and yes, have the media show all the pictures of them they can.

IT IS A FREE COUNTRY.


Posted by: Discerner at September 27, 2005 10:22 PM
Comment #82327

Reading the comments on here from the conservative contributors blows my mind.
BradM wrote:
I want them home also, but blindly pulling the plug now would create FAR more trouble in the long run.

I can’t imagine what that means. At what point does it become okay to continue a disastrous policy (that has been a disaster from its very conception) simply because it already exists? And the only reason they are willing to fall on their swords for this insanity is because their guy did it.

It is unbelievable to have Americans defending one man/one party’s political viability at the expense of human lives.

Think about what Bill Clinton was impeached for, and how low their threshold was for him. But Bush the annointed cannot be challenged, and it is disturbing that people can still pretend that everything in Iraq is just great.

Cheney said a few months ago that the insurgency was on its last legs. Does he watch the news?

Are they blind? or indifferent? or so into having power that none of this matters as long as that power is maintained?

Sadly, I think its all about the power.

Posted by: jeff at September 28, 2005 2:00 AM
Comment #82346
North Korea is close to being hell on earth.

Except for the Mount Geumgang resort and spa. I hear it’s very spiritual — and they have an excellent golf course.

Our withdrawl from Vietnam emboldened the bad guys, sent thousands of people out in the ocean in open boats, permitted Pol Pot in Cambodia who killed millions and demoralized our country. This would be worse.

This will be worse. Jack, how do you think we’re going to get out of Iraq? President Bush will eventrually declare victory and leave, regardless of how unready Iraqi security forces are or how unstable the government is. What do you think is going to happen then?

By putting political expediency above stabilizing Iraq, President Bush painted us into this corner. Did he really need to turn down UN peacekeeping troops and a bigger role for the UN overseeing the transition to democracy? Did he really need to turn over the government to the Iraqis before securing the country, privatizing the state-run economy, establishing an uncorrupt judiciary and police force, or even a writing decent constitution? Did Bush really need to hold an election without Sunni support? And why accept a constitution that creates a socialist economy and an Islamist veto on all legislation?

Iraq is a bad deal all around at this point, and if it wasn’t for the fact that al Qaeda established training and operation centers amidst the chaos we’ve failed to suppress, I’d say pull out right now. But I keep hoping Bush will get serious about securing the country — and I don’t think he will. And after that train-wreck of a constitution is ratified the chance to salvage something there will have completely slipped away.

Posted by: American Pundit at September 28, 2005 9:18 AM
Comment #82373
I can’t imagine what that means. At what point does it become okay to continue a disastrous policy (that has been a disaster from its very conception) simply because it already exists?

Jeff, It means exactly what it says. I believe that pulling out right now (which is exactly what the protestors are proposing) would lead to more problems then the US, Iraq and the World has now. I have never said that I agree with the current policy so please don’t put words in my mouth. I did, and still do support the President in his decision to go into Iraq however I believe that what has transpired since then has been many bad decisions on how to stabalize the country and have it become self sufficient. My personal thoughts are to increase the amount of troops in Iraq and do whatever it takes to crush the insurgency and actually secure that country. But instead, Bush has put politics in front of what is needed. If he was able to run for re-election I would not vote for him again for many reasons, one of which is the way that this war has been handled since the invasion was completed. So please don’t say I’m defending everything about the policies of “One Man /One Party” when I never said anything of the sort.

IMO, pulling out now will more than likely lead to increased violence in Iraq, political chaos, probable civil war, leaving people with further disdain for America because we abandoned them, (again). All of this will just serve to increase the ability of Islamic fundamentalist terrorists to recruit, train, and fund their War against this country.

So, do I think things can and should be handled better? Yes… Do I think that the answer is “Peace” marches that advocate pulling the troops out now and letting Iraq “fend for itself”. No, thats a bad move.

Posted by: BradM at September 28, 2005 11:36 AM
Comment #82392

BradM wrote:

I did, and still do support the President in his decision to go into Iraq

… IMO, pulling out now will more than likely lead to increased violence in Iraq, political chaos, probable civil war, leaving people with further disdain for America because we abandoned them, (again). All of this will just serve to increase the ability of Islamic fundamentalist terrorists to recruit, train, and fund their War against this country.

So, do I think things can and should be handled better? Yes… Do I think that the answer is “Peace” marches that advocate pulling the troops out now and letting Iraq “fend for itself”. No, thats a bad move.

And BradM, tens of thousands of Americans, myself among them, gathered on the National Mall in January of 2003 to oppose the decision to go to war before it started.

We said back then that Iraq wasn’t about protecting the US from terrorism, that we were starting a war that would bog our troops down, that were were getting involved in a country whose internal factions would start shooting at each other, and that it would create a tremendous amount of hatred toward the United States from muslim nations in general and the Arab world in particular. Turns out we were pretty close to accurate on those points. The war in Iraq is creating more terrorists every day, and the mastermid of 9/11 is still out there plotting attacks on us. Stated simply: Bush is a failure at the “war on terror.”

So, many of us who rallied on the Mall in the winter of 2003 to oppose the U.S. going to war in Iraq came back last week to urge that the troops be brought home. Given the absolute failure of this administration to listen to any dissenting and reasoned voices of opposition, this is about all I know how to do to protect my country. Joining the military sure won’t help protect my country, because the odds are I’d just be sent to fight a war against an enemy who grows stronger every day that U.S. troops occupy Iraq.

You don’t have an exit strategy for Iraq. I do. It is the U.S. government admit that this war was a mistake and cut our losses. Then we can get on to real issues of protecting this country from terrorism, because all we are doing with our military now is creating more terrorists.

SteveK

Posted by: steve at September 28, 2005 12:23 PM
Post a comment