Keith Olberman rips George Bush after yesterday's speech to the country.
I thought this person from one of my many message boards summed last night's speech up best:
What Bush has ultimately resorted to is a hope that we will all be reunited again through the psychology of fear, i.e. "If we all drop our opposition to the mistakes that I have made in responding to Al Queda, and get behind those mistakes, we will prevail in our fight in its newly defined "front" in Iraq which, although it had nothing to do with 9/11, with WMDs, with any credible IMMINENT threat to the United States, with trying to exhaust UN diplomacy, is now the lynchpin of our war against terrorism" It is totally garbage.
Bush now cites OBL for declaring that Iraq is now where World War III is occuring; therefore we must continue the battle. He now compounds this by trying to sell the illusion that every insurgent is a terrorist, therefore our fight there is the true fight against terrorists. And in the most recent turn of events, he wants to sell the illusion that this fight is analogous to World War II, and invokes the image of FDR.
FDR postulated that the war we waged was based on the four freedoms. One of those was freedom from fear. It strikes me that what we are now doing is nothing more than a reaction to fear. Al Queda was NOT in Iraq prior to our invasion, yet we put an insufficient number of troops right in the middle of the Middle East where the few Al Queda fighters from abroad could engage them. This is the putting out cheese in the rat house theory that I've posted elsewhere on this forum. It is letting the enemy determine the battlefield and the stakes to be won on it-- not a credible strategy if your goal is to defeat the enemy, and certainly not a shrewd use of our armed forces.
By Bush's reasoning, if Iraq, weakened by a previous war and lacking a sympathetic government to supporting Al Queda, was a viable threat to us, then there were certainly other nations which posed, and still pose, a more tangible threat to us which were deserving of a preemptive attack. Korea comes to mind, as does Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. The difference is that two of these three possess atomic weapons. No wonder the Iranians desire the development of a nuclear arsenal -- in the new world of neocons, the best insurance policy against an American preemptive attack is a nuclear capability. And where is the "coalition of the willing" which would support our response? The British (who are having second thoughts)? Mongolia? Who has left us, who so willingly joined us after 9/11? Poland? Spain? Italy? Japan?
We are stuck in Iraq, but the way forward is not with this administration or its sycophants in Congress. Vote them out
Great Article about the new clock rules in college football
Anybody else intrigued by these commercials that have been running since football started.
FATHEAD!
Finally,
Not happy times for Diddy aka Sean Combs
No comments:
Post a Comment