Never? I am so surprised! I would never have thunk it possible!
Yeah, that is about as surprising as finding out that Strom Thurman liked the dark meat.
In a report just out by the Defense Department's inspector general, it basically says that the link between Iraq and al-Qaida was fabricated in order to fit the presidents desire to invade Iraq. Go figure...
By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer
WASHINGTON - A "very damning" report by the Defense Department's inspector general depicts a Pentagon that purposely manipulated intelligence in an effort to linkSaddam Hussein to al-Qaida in the runup to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, says the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
"That was the argument that was used to make the sale to the American people about the need to go to war," said Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record), D-Mich. He said the Pentagon's work, "which was wrong, which was distorted, which was inappropriate ... is something which is highly disturbing."
The investigation by acting inspector general Thomas F. Gimble found that prewar intelligence work at the Pentagon, including a contention that the CIA had underplayed the likelihood of an al-Qaida connection, was inappropriate but not illegal. The report was to be presented to Levin's panel at a hearing Friday.
The report found that former Pentagon policy chief Douglas J. Feith had not engaged in illegal activities through the creation of special offices to review intelligence. Some Democrats also have contended that Feith misled Congress about the basis of the administration's assertions on the threat posed by Iraq, but the Pentagon investigation did not support that. Two people familiar with the findings discussed the main points and some details Thursday on condition they not be identified.
(Full Story)
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Friday, February 09, 2007
Friday, December 15, 2006
Jackass Awards
Sometimes there are people who deserve a special mention for being outright jackasses. So, today, today, I am listing some from the past week who have gone above and beyond the call of Jackassdom to reach new levels of jackassedness.
#3 - Tom DeLay
Tom Delay this week blamed the whole fiasco in Iraq on liberals and democrats. He claimed that if it were not for them whining and complaining about how bad things are in Iraq, things wouldn't be bad in Iraq. I guess Republicans who had complete control of the government had nothing to do with the failures we have suffered in Iraq. Sectarian violence? Democrats... No military plan to win the war? Liberals... The erosion of moral superiority in the world's eyes? Liberal media... Donald Rumsfeld's job performance? Ted Kennedy all by himself.
#2 - Freepers
The brain trust that is also known as the Free Republic had much to say about the recent tragedy of Tim Johnson's stroke. They spent the first two responses in the thread commenting on how repugnant it is for democrats to talk about the balance of power in the U.S. Senate if Johnson was not to fully recover or die... and then spent the next 78 responses talking about the balance of power in the Senate if Johnson was not to fully recover or die.
Notably, the Freepers also commented on how Johnson's stroke was the will of God to put control of the Senate back in Republican hands.
Then the freepers went on to make fun of the Senator if he were to be severely disabled.
It warms the heart to know that the good people at the Free Republic are looking out for our best interests.
# 1 - Soledad O'Brien
Today, the waste of space that is Soledad O'Brien, interviewed the three wives of the men trapped on Mt. Hood. As the three women held each others hands, on the verge of tears, Soledad reiterated the horrible conditions on the mountain and asked the dumbest question ever:
"Are you still hopeful? The weather conditions as you've seen are so dreadful; the rescuers can't make it up the mountain; It is almost white out conditions; it's weather wise terrible, terrible conditions. Are you still hopeful you are going to get any good news out of this"
Thank you Soledad for telling these women that they have basically no cause for hope that they may ever see their loved ones again. What are they supposed to say? 'No, we have no hope. Our husbands are as good as dead'? Why don't you go eat one of their kids also, Soledad... lets see if you can do anything to make them feel even worse.
#3 - Tom DeLay
Tom Delay this week blamed the whole fiasco in Iraq on liberals and democrats. He claimed that if it were not for them whining and complaining about how bad things are in Iraq, things wouldn't be bad in Iraq. I guess Republicans who had complete control of the government had nothing to do with the failures we have suffered in Iraq. Sectarian violence? Democrats... No military plan to win the war? Liberals... The erosion of moral superiority in the world's eyes? Liberal media... Donald Rumsfeld's job performance? Ted Kennedy all by himself.
#2 - Freepers
The brain trust that is also known as the Free Republic had much to say about the recent tragedy of Tim Johnson's stroke. They spent the first two responses in the thread commenting on how repugnant it is for democrats to talk about the balance of power in the U.S. Senate if Johnson was not to fully recover or die... and then spent the next 78 responses talking about the balance of power in the Senate if Johnson was not to fully recover or die.
Notably, the Freepers also commented on how Johnson's stroke was the will of God to put control of the Senate back in Republican hands.
The real news of the day is that God may have placed the Senate back in our hands!
If the Senator recovers we can have joy for him and his family, we are abased. If he does not, we can have joy for our nation, we abound [emphasis is their own]
Then the freepers went on to make fun of the Senator if he were to be severely disabled.
One blink means 'tax'. Two blinks means 'spend'. Three blinks means 'surrender'
It warms the heart to know that the good people at the Free Republic are looking out for our best interests.
# 1 - Soledad O'Brien
Today, the waste of space that is Soledad O'Brien, interviewed the three wives of the men trapped on Mt. Hood. As the three women held each others hands, on the verge of tears, Soledad reiterated the horrible conditions on the mountain and asked the dumbest question ever:
"Are you still hopeful? The weather conditions as you've seen are so dreadful; the rescuers can't make it up the mountain; It is almost white out conditions; it's weather wise terrible, terrible conditions. Are you still hopeful you are going to get any good news out of this"
Thank you Soledad for telling these women that they have basically no cause for hope that they may ever see their loved ones again. What are they supposed to say? 'No, we have no hope. Our husbands are as good as dead'? Why don't you go eat one of their kids also, Soledad... lets see if you can do anything to make them feel even worse.
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Why Do Today What You Can Put Off Until Tomorrow
Yesterday, President Bush stated that he will put off announcing his plans for changes in his Iraq policy until after the new year. As of right now, we have gone into a "new way forward."
And by a new way forward, he means a new way forward... to a new slogan.
Seriously, if they had put as much time into actually planning and executing the war as they put into coming up with new catchy slogans, we might have been able to win this thing.
First it was "Mission Accomplished" - Well, turns out that the mission wasn't accomplished, so they had to scrap that.
Then they moved to "The Next Phase" - Unfortunately, the next phase was a phase into insurgency.
After that, we had "Stay the Course" - Again, that course was right over a cliff
Then came "Adapt and Change" - This, of course, referred to the Bush administrations slogans and not actually policy. The policy remained stay the course. The only thing adapted or changed was Bush's catch phrase.
Now, it is "A New Way Forward" - Again, this appears only to be a way forward to a new slogan. He just needed enough time for his PR team to come up with a new slogan... Because, you know... a good slogan solves everything.
I am thinking the next one will be "What? Like You've Got a Better Idea" - But then again, I think Mrs. Harding's 3rd grade class could actually come up with a better idea, so that might not be a good one.
"It's A Hard Job Being the President" has already been used, so that is right out the window.
With any luck, then next slogan will be "Whatever Dude! I Quit!"
And by a new way forward, he means a new way forward... to a new slogan.
Seriously, if they had put as much time into actually planning and executing the war as they put into coming up with new catchy slogans, we might have been able to win this thing.
First it was "Mission Accomplished" - Well, turns out that the mission wasn't accomplished, so they had to scrap that.
Then they moved to "The Next Phase" - Unfortunately, the next phase was a phase into insurgency.
After that, we had "Stay the Course" - Again, that course was right over a cliff
Then came "Adapt and Change" - This, of course, referred to the Bush administrations slogans and not actually policy. The policy remained stay the course. The only thing adapted or changed was Bush's catch phrase.
Now, it is "A New Way Forward" - Again, this appears only to be a way forward to a new slogan. He just needed enough time for his PR team to come up with a new slogan... Because, you know... a good slogan solves everything.
I am thinking the next one will be "What? Like You've Got a Better Idea" - But then again, I think Mrs. Harding's 3rd grade class could actually come up with a better idea, so that might not be a good one.
"It's A Hard Job Being the President" has already been used, so that is right out the window.
With any luck, then next slogan will be "Whatever Dude! I Quit!"
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Irony Is Not Just A River In Egypt
On the heels of Bush's cross country campaign against the "Cut and Run" democrats, Bush is now on a three nation tour of the far east.
One of those nation that Bush will be visiting is Vietnam. The irony of this trip could not be greater. Bush spent two solid months of crisscrossing this country, begging and pleading for people to return a Republican majority to the Congress. He bellowed over and over that a Democratically controlled congress will cut and run from Iraq and the world will come to a quick and decisive end, and now he is visiting Vietnam...
Vietnam is the last major conflict in which we cut and run. It was said that the whole of the far east would fall to communism. The American way of life would be jeopardized.
Now, 25 years later, Bush is attending a conference in Hanoi. Americans and Europeans flock as tourist to the same beaches that we "fled" from a generation earlier. The American way of life was preserved despite the pro-war faction's predictions. Post war analysis has pretty much definitively determined that the war in Vietnam would never have been winnable without 50,000 more American lives lost. 25 years since we cut and ran and the world didn't end.
The is because cut and run is not the end of the world. It wasn't then, and it is not now.
If Truman had cut and run in 1950 from the Korean war as soon as the status quo had been regained and the North Koreans had been pushed back to the 38th parallel, it would have saved 10,000 American lives. Instead, he decided to push the North Koreans all the way to China which ended up extending the war by three years. In the end, we ended up with the same result as we would have if we had just ended the war in 1950.
I have never advocated an immediate pullout of American troops. But lets stop the idiotic propaganda war of saying that cut and run is un-patriotic. Sometimes, cut and run is the best and most viable option. If you are down $20,000 at the poker table, is it really manly to keep on betting and lose the house as well? If we stop the name calling and the fake patriotic machismo, maybe we can finally have an honest discussion about how to best conduct the war in Iraq and the war on terror. From a purely global strategic position, cut and run might be the very best thing for the American people, the Iraqi people, and the War on Terror.
One of those nation that Bush will be visiting is Vietnam. The irony of this trip could not be greater. Bush spent two solid months of crisscrossing this country, begging and pleading for people to return a Republican majority to the Congress. He bellowed over and over that a Democratically controlled congress will cut and run from Iraq and the world will come to a quick and decisive end, and now he is visiting Vietnam...
Vietnam is the last major conflict in which we cut and run. It was said that the whole of the far east would fall to communism. The American way of life would be jeopardized.
Now, 25 years later, Bush is attending a conference in Hanoi. Americans and Europeans flock as tourist to the same beaches that we "fled" from a generation earlier. The American way of life was preserved despite the pro-war faction's predictions. Post war analysis has pretty much definitively determined that the war in Vietnam would never have been winnable without 50,000 more American lives lost. 25 years since we cut and ran and the world didn't end.
The is because cut and run is not the end of the world. It wasn't then, and it is not now.
If Truman had cut and run in 1950 from the Korean war as soon as the status quo had been regained and the North Koreans had been pushed back to the 38th parallel, it would have saved 10,000 American lives. Instead, he decided to push the North Koreans all the way to China which ended up extending the war by three years. In the end, we ended up with the same result as we would have if we had just ended the war in 1950.
I have never advocated an immediate pullout of American troops. But lets stop the idiotic propaganda war of saying that cut and run is un-patriotic. Sometimes, cut and run is the best and most viable option. If you are down $20,000 at the poker table, is it really manly to keep on betting and lose the house as well? If we stop the name calling and the fake patriotic machismo, maybe we can finally have an honest discussion about how to best conduct the war in Iraq and the war on terror. From a purely global strategic position, cut and run might be the very best thing for the American people, the Iraqi people, and the War on Terror.
Friday, November 10, 2006
Quagmire
Can't Keep Quiet has a great little clip of Dick Cheney saying during the 1991 Gulf War that removal of Saddam from power and the occupation of Iraq could be nothing other than a quagmire. Go figure...
Sunday, November 05, 2006
With the Writing on the Wall... Bush Looks at His Feet
Things are really really bad for the Bush Iraq policy when the most ardent of supporters, the king of the Neo-cons, Richard Pearle, is saying that the presidents policy is failed and he is completely incompetent.
Iraq war proponents decry administration
By BARRY SCHWEID, AP Diplomatic Writer
Sat Nov 4, 5:39 PM ET
WASHINGTON - A leading conservative proponent of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq now says dysfunction within the Bush administration has turned U.S. policy there into a disaster.
Even worse is when the Military Times, et al, the news papers dedicated to the military branches and their issues, are calling for the removal of Donald Rumsfeld. None the less, Dick Cheney was on the Sunday morning Talking Heads saying that the Iraq policy will continue full steam ahead without change.
Time for Rumsfeld to go
“So long as our government requires the backing of an aroused and informed public opinion ... it is necessary to tell the hard bruising truth.”
That statement was written by Pulitzer Prize-winning war correspondent Marguerite Higgins more than a half-century ago during the Korean War.
But until recently, the “hard bruising” truth about the Iraq war has been difficult to come by from leaders in Washington.
One rosy reassurance after another has been handed down by President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: “mission accomplished,” the insurgency is “in its last throes,” and “back off,” we know what we’re doing, are a few choice examples.
Military leaders generally toed the line, although a few retired generals eventually spoke out from the safety of the sidelines, inciting criticism equally from anti-war types, who thought they should have spoken out while still in uniform, and pro-war foes, who thought the generals should have kept their critiques behind closed doors.
Now, however, a new chorus of criticism is beginning to resonate. Active-duty military leaders are starting to voice misgivings about the war’s planning, execution and dimming prospects for success.
Army Gen. John Abizaid, chief of U.S. Central Command, told a Senate Armed Services Committee in September: “I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I’ve seen it ... and that if not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move towards civil war.”
Last week, someone leaked to The New York Times a Central Command briefing slide showing an assessment that the civil conflict in Iraq now borders on “critical” and has been sliding toward “chaos” for most of the past year. The strategy in Iraq has been to train an Iraqi army and police force that could gradually take over for U.S. troops in providing for the security of their new government and their nation.
But despite the best efforts of American trainers, the problem of molding a viciously sectarian population into anything resembling a force for national unity has become a losing proposition.
For two years, American sergeants, captains and majors training the Iraqis have told their bosses that Iraqi troops have no sense of national identity, are only in it for the money, don’t show up for duty and cannot sustain themselves.
Meanwhile, colonels and generals have asked their bosses for more troops. Service chiefs have asked for more money.
And all along, Rumsfeld has assured us that things are well in hand.
Now, the president says he’ll stick with Rumsfeld for the balance of his term in the White House.
This is a mistake. It is one thing for the majority of Americans to think Rumsfeld has failed. But when the nation’s current military leaders start to break publicly with their defense secretary, then it is clear that he is losing control of the institution he ostensibly leads.
These officers have been loyal public promoters of a war policy many privately feared would fail. They have kept their counsel private, adhering to more than two centuries of American tradition of subordination of the military to civilian authority.
And although that tradition, and the officers’ deep sense of honor, prevent them from saying this publicly, more and more of them believe it.
Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large. His strategy has failed, and his ability to lead is compromised. And although the blame for our failures in Iraq rests with the secretary, it will be the troops who bear its brunt.
This is not about the midterm elections. Regardless of which party wins Nov. 7, the time has come, Mr. President, to face the hard bruising truth:
Donald Rumsfeld must go.
Iraq war proponents decry administration
By BARRY SCHWEID, AP Diplomatic Writer
Sat Nov 4, 5:39 PM ET
WASHINGTON - A leading conservative proponent of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq now says dysfunction within the Bush administration has turned U.S. policy there into a disaster.
Even worse is when the Military Times, et al, the news papers dedicated to the military branches and their issues, are calling for the removal of Donald Rumsfeld. None the less, Dick Cheney was on the Sunday morning Talking Heads saying that the Iraq policy will continue full steam ahead without change.
Time for Rumsfeld to go
“So long as our government requires the backing of an aroused and informed public opinion ... it is necessary to tell the hard bruising truth.”
That statement was written by Pulitzer Prize-winning war correspondent Marguerite Higgins more than a half-century ago during the Korean War.
But until recently, the “hard bruising” truth about the Iraq war has been difficult to come by from leaders in Washington.
One rosy reassurance after another has been handed down by President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: “mission accomplished,” the insurgency is “in its last throes,” and “back off,” we know what we’re doing, are a few choice examples.
Military leaders generally toed the line, although a few retired generals eventually spoke out from the safety of the sidelines, inciting criticism equally from anti-war types, who thought they should have spoken out while still in uniform, and pro-war foes, who thought the generals should have kept their critiques behind closed doors.
Now, however, a new chorus of criticism is beginning to resonate. Active-duty military leaders are starting to voice misgivings about the war’s planning, execution and dimming prospects for success.
Army Gen. John Abizaid, chief of U.S. Central Command, told a Senate Armed Services Committee in September: “I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I’ve seen it ... and that if not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move towards civil war.”
Last week, someone leaked to The New York Times a Central Command briefing slide showing an assessment that the civil conflict in Iraq now borders on “critical” and has been sliding toward “chaos” for most of the past year. The strategy in Iraq has been to train an Iraqi army and police force that could gradually take over for U.S. troops in providing for the security of their new government and their nation.
But despite the best efforts of American trainers, the problem of molding a viciously sectarian population into anything resembling a force for national unity has become a losing proposition.
For two years, American sergeants, captains and majors training the Iraqis have told their bosses that Iraqi troops have no sense of national identity, are only in it for the money, don’t show up for duty and cannot sustain themselves.
Meanwhile, colonels and generals have asked their bosses for more troops. Service chiefs have asked for more money.
And all along, Rumsfeld has assured us that things are well in hand.
Now, the president says he’ll stick with Rumsfeld for the balance of his term in the White House.
This is a mistake. It is one thing for the majority of Americans to think Rumsfeld has failed. But when the nation’s current military leaders start to break publicly with their defense secretary, then it is clear that he is losing control of the institution he ostensibly leads.
These officers have been loyal public promoters of a war policy many privately feared would fail. They have kept their counsel private, adhering to more than two centuries of American tradition of subordination of the military to civilian authority.
And although that tradition, and the officers’ deep sense of honor, prevent them from saying this publicly, more and more of them believe it.
Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large. His strategy has failed, and his ability to lead is compromised. And although the blame for our failures in Iraq rests with the secretary, it will be the troops who bear its brunt.
This is not about the midterm elections. Regardless of which party wins Nov. 7, the time has come, Mr. President, to face the hard bruising truth:
Donald Rumsfeld must go.
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Cutting and Staying... Errr... Running the Course... Errr
So, Bush is cutting and running... from staying the course... kind of.
Bush has decided to no longer use the term "stay the course." But that doesn't mean that we are not staying the course. No, we are in fact staying the course, just no longer using that term. (Bush's New Tack Steers Clear of 'Stay the Course', Bush officials: No big move in Iraq plan).
Since the course we are staying on is going right over a waterfall, the White house has decided to change the terminology used to explain his failed policies. After all, failure is fine as long as there is a nifty new catch phrase to accompany it. I think they are going to use something like "adapt and change." And by "adapt and change" they mean "stay the course." I hear that adapt and change just elbowed out "don't look at me" and "its hard being the president" for Bush's new slogans. Thankfully, Bush's favorite, "slap me in the ass and call me Judy," was nixed outright.
Additionally, the White House still refuses to set a time line for the take over of Iraq security forces and the withdrawal of American troops... except that we are now setting a time line for the withdrawal of American troops and the take over of American troops (Iraq agrees to develop security time line)
So we are no longer staying the course... only that we are not changing course. And we are not setting time lines... except for the time lines now being set... kind of... but not really.
Does he really wonder why no one believes that he has a plan to win in Iraq? They can't even articulate the basics. Unfortunately, there are plenty of people out there who will buy the shiny new box with the same old product inside.
Bush has decided to no longer use the term "stay the course." But that doesn't mean that we are not staying the course. No, we are in fact staying the course, just no longer using that term. (Bush's New Tack Steers Clear of 'Stay the Course', Bush officials: No big move in Iraq plan).
Since the course we are staying on is going right over a waterfall, the White house has decided to change the terminology used to explain his failed policies. After all, failure is fine as long as there is a nifty new catch phrase to accompany it. I think they are going to use something like "adapt and change." And by "adapt and change" they mean "stay the course." I hear that adapt and change just elbowed out "don't look at me" and "its hard being the president" for Bush's new slogans. Thankfully, Bush's favorite, "slap me in the ass and call me Judy," was nixed outright.
Additionally, the White House still refuses to set a time line for the take over of Iraq security forces and the withdrawal of American troops... except that we are now setting a time line for the withdrawal of American troops and the take over of American troops (Iraq agrees to develop security time line)
So we are no longer staying the course... only that we are not changing course. And we are not setting time lines... except for the time lines now being set... kind of... but not really.
Does he really wonder why no one believes that he has a plan to win in Iraq? They can't even articulate the basics. Unfortunately, there are plenty of people out there who will buy the shiny new box with the same old product inside.
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
State of Denial is an Understatement for Bush
In a press conference today, Bush was asked about the report that there have been over 350,000 deaths in Iraq since our invasion. He said that he did not agree with the report and went on to say:
A level of violence that they are willing to tolerate!!! Are you kidding me? What choice to they have? Or is Bush saying that they are willing to tolerate the violence because they hope America will finally leave?
Get real Bush. They aren't "tolerating" violence in order to be free. They are subjugated to violence because they have no choice. Either they endure the death squads and suicide bombers because they can't leave, or, like the over 800,000 who can, have already left the country.
Can he get anymore out of touch than he already is?
H/T Thinkprogress
And I applaud the Iraqis for their courage in the face of violence. I am, you know, amazed that this is a society which so wants to be free that they’re willing to — you know, that there’s a level of violence that they tolerate.
A level of violence that they are willing to tolerate!!! Are you kidding me? What choice to they have? Or is Bush saying that they are willing to tolerate the violence because they hope America will finally leave?
Get real Bush. They aren't "tolerating" violence in order to be free. They are subjugated to violence because they have no choice. Either they endure the death squads and suicide bombers because they can't leave, or, like the over 800,000 who can, have already left the country.
Can he get anymore out of touch than he already is?
H/T Thinkprogress
Monday, September 27, 2004
Musharraf Says the World is Less Safe
Even our primary partner on the war against terror, Pakistan's President Musharraf, thinks Iraq is a mistake and is distracting from out true goals. CNN's Paula Zahn interviewed President Musharraf (excerpts below). Musharraf expressed his belief that the was in Iraq has made the world less safe and made the fight against terrorism more difficult:
President Musharraf
Aired September 24, 2004 - 20:00 ET
ZAHN: Is the world a safer place because of the war in Iraq?
MUSHARRAF: No. It's more dangerous. It's not safer, certainly not.
ZAHN: How so?
MUSHARRAF: Well, because it has aroused actions of the Muslims more. It's aroused certain sentiments of the Muslim world, and then the responses, the latest phenomena of explosives, more frequent for bombs and suicide bombings. This phenomenon is extremely dangerous.
ZAHN: Was it a mistake to have gone to war with Iraq?
MUSHARRAF: Well, I would say that it has ended up bringing more trouble to the world.
ZAHN: Do you think that the war in Iraq has undermined the overall war on terror?
MUSHARRAF: It has complicated it, certainly. I wouldn't say undermined. It has further complicated it. It has made the job more difficult.
Good going Bush. The one place we need to fight terrorism the most (Afghanistan/Pakistan) is now even harder to do it in.
President Musharraf
Aired September 24, 2004 - 20:00 ET
ZAHN: Is the world a safer place because of the war in Iraq?
MUSHARRAF: No. It's more dangerous. It's not safer, certainly not.
ZAHN: How so?
MUSHARRAF: Well, because it has aroused actions of the Muslims more. It's aroused certain sentiments of the Muslim world, and then the responses, the latest phenomena of explosives, more frequent for bombs and suicide bombings. This phenomenon is extremely dangerous.
ZAHN: Was it a mistake to have gone to war with Iraq?
MUSHARRAF: Well, I would say that it has ended up bringing more trouble to the world.
ZAHN: Do you think that the war in Iraq has undermined the overall war on terror?
MUSHARRAF: It has complicated it, certainly. I wouldn't say undermined. It has further complicated it. It has made the job more difficult.
Good going Bush. The one place we need to fight terrorism the most (Afghanistan/Pakistan) is now even harder to do it in.
Thursday, September 23, 2004
The Wrong Direction
As reported by the AP wire Sept 23rd, "President Bush on Thursday shrugged off polls that suggest most Iraqis see Americans as occupiers not liberators. 'I saw a poll that said the right track-wrong track in Iraq was better than here in America,' he told reporters. Bush did not indicate what poll he was referring to, but White House aides cited a recent poll in Iraq conducted in late August that showed that more than 51 percent of Iraqis surveyed felt their country was headed in 'the right direction,' up slightly from a May/June poll. "
Is he serious? Did he mean it? And why would he be proud of that? If it were true, I would not be touting it as good news.
First of all, before the US invasion, Iraq was ruled by a brutal dictator and suffering from 11 years of UN sanctions. If there is only 51% of the population that thinks the country is doing better and heading in the right direction, that is a bad sign, not a good sign. That means one out of every two Iraqis believe the country was better off under the brutal dictator.
Second, it shows his failure of leadership in the US where only 44% (Washington Post 9/9/04) of the population believes the country is heading in the right direction. He has misled the American people, he has squandered our money, put us in debt and made us less safe... and he is proud?
Is he serious? Did he mean it? And why would he be proud of that? If it were true, I would not be touting it as good news.
First of all, before the US invasion, Iraq was ruled by a brutal dictator and suffering from 11 years of UN sanctions. If there is only 51% of the population that thinks the country is doing better and heading in the right direction, that is a bad sign, not a good sign. That means one out of every two Iraqis believe the country was better off under the brutal dictator.
Second, it shows his failure of leadership in the US where only 44% (Washington Post 9/9/04) of the population believes the country is heading in the right direction. He has misled the American people, he has squandered our money, put us in debt and made us less safe... and he is proud?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
