Let's just call it an occupation and stay in Iraq forever.
In his latest column, Dave attacks John Murtha and the Democratic leadership for having the audacity to demand a new direction in the occupation of Iraq. Reinhard describes Murtha's "change in direction" as a euphenism for retreat.
How can this be? What would our soldiers be retreating from? They invaded the country, tore down a statue, and liberated Iraq from Saddam. And that was three years ago! After all that, we still have thousands of soldiers on duty in Iraq, acting as both sitting ducks and as symbols to embolden the Sunni insurgency. You might think, after the kidnapping and brutal beheading of Pfc. Thomas Tucker from Madras, Dave- as columnist for Oregon's largest newspaper- would be issuing demands for our boys to return home. Would it be to much for Dave to ask why our boys from small mountain towns to need to be killed in horrible ways on the sandy desert soil of foreign lands?
But instead, there is no mention of Tucker in Dave's column at all. Great way to remember the sacrifices our state has been giving at a larger rate than others. And yet Reinhard has the gumption to routinely criticize Governor Kulongoski, who has attended every military funeral for an Oregon soldier lost in Dubya's Iraqi Adventure, and even has to alter his travel plans to attend the latest two (a soldier from Milwaukie has recently been killed as well).
Gosh, if Reinahrd, Rove, and Rumsfeld had their way in conducting this war, nearly three thousands lives of our bravest men would be wasted needlessly. We haven't reached that number yet. But if we "stay the course" it will be reached soon.
What I find interesting about Dave's argument is that its no longer supported by a majority of Americans- or Iraqis. Not only do the latest poll results show that barely a third of respondents support Bush's war, but its been two years since a majority has supported this war. But, it's an election year, so you know what that means, right? The will of the people is going to be ignored, and the lives of our soldiers will be used for political gain.
Last week the House of Representatives took a vote on "immediate withdrawal", a perversion of Murtha's call to bring the troops home. Not surprisingly, it was voted down. Then the House took a vote on an entirely symbolic amendment to "support the troops" until the "mission is done." What mission? For some reason, the definition for this was left vague. If we don't know what the mission is- how can we tell when it's done? I thought our mission was accomplished?
The most outrageous thing, in my opinion, I thought the Republicans voted for was to have "the Iraqis come up with a plan" to lead their country. The Republicans missed it- the Iraqis do have a plan. Part of that plan is for the U.S. troops to leave the country. The Democrats have debated and proposed their plan, which is to support the Iraqis' plan. In response, the Republican shoot that plan down and vote for a plan to have "the Iraqis come up with a plan." And round and round it goes.
The reason why the Republicans are being so vague and non-sensical is they don't want this war in Iraq to end- ever. This isn't a war, it's an occupation. That's why Dave doesn't want there to be a "change of direction." It's a never-ending occupation, hence the building of permanent bases there, including Camp Anaconda which is over 15 square miles. If the Republicans are going to fight a never-ending occupation to maintain their political grasp on all three branches of goverment, then they're going to need some place to house all the troops.
Political control- didn't you know that's what this occupation is all about? You thought it was to liberate Iraq, or to promote democracy? Did you even think it was about oil? P'shaw. A few thousand soldiers lives is a small sacrifice to pay for the privatization of social security and getting Sam Alito Jr. on the Supreme Court bench.
How can this be? What would our soldiers be retreating from? They invaded the country, tore down a statue, and liberated Iraq from Saddam. And that was three years ago! After all that, we still have thousands of soldiers on duty in Iraq, acting as both sitting ducks and as symbols to embolden the Sunni insurgency. You might think, after the kidnapping and brutal beheading of Pfc. Thomas Tucker from Madras, Dave- as columnist for Oregon's largest newspaper- would be issuing demands for our boys to return home. Would it be to much for Dave to ask why our boys from small mountain towns to need to be killed in horrible ways on the sandy desert soil of foreign lands?
But instead, there is no mention of Tucker in Dave's column at all. Great way to remember the sacrifices our state has been giving at a larger rate than others. And yet Reinhard has the gumption to routinely criticize Governor Kulongoski, who has attended every military funeral for an Oregon soldier lost in Dubya's Iraqi Adventure, and even has to alter his travel plans to attend the latest two (a soldier from Milwaukie has recently been killed as well).
Gosh, if Reinahrd, Rove, and Rumsfeld had their way in conducting this war, nearly three thousands lives of our bravest men would be wasted needlessly. We haven't reached that number yet. But if we "stay the course" it will be reached soon.
What I find interesting about Dave's argument is that its no longer supported by a majority of Americans- or Iraqis. Not only do the latest poll results show that barely a third of respondents support Bush's war, but its been two years since a majority has supported this war. But, it's an election year, so you know what that means, right? The will of the people is going to be ignored, and the lives of our soldiers will be used for political gain.
Last week the House of Representatives took a vote on "immediate withdrawal", a perversion of Murtha's call to bring the troops home. Not surprisingly, it was voted down. Then the House took a vote on an entirely symbolic amendment to "support the troops" until the "mission is done." What mission? For some reason, the definition for this was left vague. If we don't know what the mission is- how can we tell when it's done? I thought our mission was accomplished?
The most outrageous thing, in my opinion, I thought the Republicans voted for was to have "the Iraqis come up with a plan" to lead their country. The Republicans missed it- the Iraqis do have a plan. Part of that plan is for the U.S. troops to leave the country. The Democrats have debated and proposed their plan, which is to support the Iraqis' plan. In response, the Republican shoot that plan down and vote for a plan to have "the Iraqis come up with a plan." And round and round it goes.
The reason why the Republicans are being so vague and non-sensical is they don't want this war in Iraq to end- ever. This isn't a war, it's an occupation. That's why Dave doesn't want there to be a "change of direction." It's a never-ending occupation, hence the building of permanent bases there, including Camp Anaconda which is over 15 square miles. If the Republicans are going to fight a never-ending occupation to maintain their political grasp on all three branches of goverment, then they're going to need some place to house all the troops.
Political control- didn't you know that's what this occupation is all about? You thought it was to liberate Iraq, or to promote democracy? Did you even think it was about oil? P'shaw. A few thousand soldiers lives is a small sacrifice to pay for the privatization of social security and getting Sam Alito Jr. on the Supreme Court bench.
posted by true_slicky at 11:05 AM
2 Comments:
What is truly immoral is that the President is so willing to continue sacrificing American lives just so that he need never admit that he was wrong about Iraq. Everyone knows that this occupation is not going well (despite all the heralded "turning points") and it is nothing but extreme turpitude for Dave and the Republicants to go along with Bush's "more of the same." They can deride any plan for extracting ourselves from this mess as "cutting and running," but at some point, don't they have get beyond mere politics? With this crowd, probably not.
The Republicans can deride the Democrats for wanting to "cut and run" by I'm a fan of Kerry's frame, that the Republicans insist on a "lie and die" plan.
Post a Comment
<< Home