It had to do with Senator John McCain telling his audience about what a withdrawal from Iraq would actually mean. Of course, genocide, Iraqi against Iraqi, sectarian religion v sectarian religion. Of course the usual we support GW at all costs commenters weighed in on this such as ITK, or Eagle Eye, etc. Right along with ThomG and others who do feel that it is time we moved on as far as Iraq goes and finally got ready to leave. Dave Oliveria who runs this S-R blog actually asked the question of phased withdrawals. Which might finally argue that even DFO is getting a little tired of this war.
My take: why are we still in this country when terrorism threatens many more nations, inclusive of our allies? Iran has interfered with Iraq without question on some political motivation fed them by GW himself. GW looking for excuses to posture for war with Iran. That would indeed be political motivation for Iranian foreign fighters to "bleed" American military forces in Iraq. But there is in fact a lot more involved. GW was so supportive of the poor and oppressed Shi'ite majority. Did he ever stop to think about the fact that this religious group in particular would make common cause with Iran? Apparently not. And as much as we have a valid reason to have put an end to the brutal reign of Saddam Hussein, he did treat the Shi'ites as enemies who would have indeed made common cause with his sworn enemy Iran. So, the middle eastern politics in this would be considered complex in and of itself. Too complex to be able to simplify from a war-minded and ideologically driven GW White House.
Because of a lack of historical and current understanding of the issues. Even though they were a matter of public record such as found in various news reports. GW demanded war, GW got war, and afterwards, GW got a mess that the U.S. can't easily extricate itself from without creating an even bigger mess. I have no doubts about that. We opened this Pandora's box without any consideration of the consequences. And those who did consider the consequences of such an invasion were few and far between. And the punditry who appeared in Spokesman-Review editorials, who put on the rose colored glasses for this war, would later also be the same kind of people who would fear the consequences of our getting out "too soon." Or those who appeared on Lou Dobbs CNN show, "Lou Dobbs Tonight" advocating that this war in Iraq would be a "cake walk;" would also make the 180* turn on why we need to stay in Iraq despite all of our "successes." What I call the "pretzel argument." It is to laugh.
What also brings along a lot of head shaking dismay is the fact that "Cabbage Boy" or other pro-GW commenters seem to be a little too prepared to forget recent history as they revisit it with revisionist ideology. History of this country's conflict in Iraq from 2003 to today. A history of the fact as even recorded in an old Time Magazine article, the Al Qaeda was again being reborn, and proven out by how many more countries had become victimized by Al Qaeda inspired terrorism since our invasion of Iraq to presumably quell terrorism. A U.S. Military study confirmed that Saddam Hussein had no links to terrorism (source: CNN.) Reconfirmed on "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart." Our "justifiable" reasons for going there, was that Hussein would pass WMDs to people (whom he also regarded as an enemy owing to their extreme religious views). That he encouraged terrorist attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon because of his humiliating defeat in Gulf War I. A commentary that was appearing on the 'net years after the invasion itself. Our justification, without a basis in fact for taking out Hussein even before we would consider his human rights abuses. The (late) Molly Ivins produced a contrarian view that reminded her American audience that there were no Iraqis on board those planes on 9/11/2001. No, there were not. And GW seemed a little too prepared to protect his Saudi buddies (from who's country the majority of terrorists had come from) which was also given news magazine coverage at the time. Such as Vanity Fair and Time, etc. Only the GW administration was prepared to fabricate a link and wax hysterical over what they "feared" would happen if Hussein weren't immediately toppled. Well, he has been toppled, executed, and we haven't a clue as to what to do with the "Mess o'Potamia" (source: The Daily Show) that we have created. At some point we have to leave a country we recognize as a sovereign nation since 2004. I'd suggest to my fellow commenters to remember that.
My take: why are we still in this country when terrorism threatens many more nations, inclusive of our allies? Iran has interfered with Iraq without question on some political motivation fed them by GW himself. GW looking for excuses to posture for war with Iran. That would indeed be political motivation for Iranian foreign fighters to "bleed" American military forces in Iraq. But there is in fact a lot more involved. GW was so supportive of the poor and oppressed Shi'ite majority. Did he ever stop to think about the fact that this religious group in particular would make common cause with Iran? Apparently not. And as much as we have a valid reason to have put an end to the brutal reign of Saddam Hussein, he did treat the Shi'ites as enemies who would have indeed made common cause with his sworn enemy Iran. So, the middle eastern politics in this would be considered complex in and of itself. Too complex to be able to simplify from a war-minded and ideologically driven GW White House.
Because of a lack of historical and current understanding of the issues. Even though they were a matter of public record such as found in various news reports. GW demanded war, GW got war, and afterwards, GW got a mess that the U.S. can't easily extricate itself from without creating an even bigger mess. I have no doubts about that. We opened this Pandora's box without any consideration of the consequences. And those who did consider the consequences of such an invasion were few and far between. And the punditry who appeared in Spokesman-Review editorials, who put on the rose colored glasses for this war, would later also be the same kind of people who would fear the consequences of our getting out "too soon." Or those who appeared on Lou Dobbs CNN show, "Lou Dobbs Tonight" advocating that this war in Iraq would be a "cake walk;" would also make the 180* turn on why we need to stay in Iraq despite all of our "successes." What I call the "pretzel argument." It is to laugh.
What also brings along a lot of head shaking dismay is the fact that "Cabbage Boy" or other pro-GW commenters seem to be a little too prepared to forget recent history as they revisit it with revisionist ideology. History of this country's conflict in Iraq from 2003 to today. A history of the fact as even recorded in an old Time Magazine article, the Al Qaeda was again being reborn, and proven out by how many more countries had become victimized by Al Qaeda inspired terrorism since our invasion of Iraq to presumably quell terrorism. A U.S. Military study confirmed that Saddam Hussein had no links to terrorism (source: CNN.) Reconfirmed on "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart." Our "justifiable" reasons for going there, was that Hussein would pass WMDs to people (whom he also regarded as an enemy owing to their extreme religious views). That he encouraged terrorist attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon because of his humiliating defeat in Gulf War I. A commentary that was appearing on the 'net years after the invasion itself. Our justification, without a basis in fact for taking out Hussein even before we would consider his human rights abuses. The (late) Molly Ivins produced a contrarian view that reminded her American audience that there were no Iraqis on board those planes on 9/11/2001. No, there were not. And GW seemed a little too prepared to protect his Saudi buddies (from who's country the majority of terrorists had come from) which was also given news magazine coverage at the time. Such as Vanity Fair and Time, etc. Only the GW administration was prepared to fabricate a link and wax hysterical over what they "feared" would happen if Hussein weren't immediately toppled. Well, he has been toppled, executed, and we haven't a clue as to what to do with the "Mess o'Potamia" (source: The Daily Show) that we have created. At some point we have to leave a country we recognize as a sovereign nation since 2004. I'd suggest to my fellow commenters to remember that.
Posts
2 comments:
I take a couple of days off and miss all the fun! Thanks for bringing the facts forward one more time. Now if we could only get the horses to drink!
Vote for a Democrat. That is the only way the horses will drink.
Post a Comment