Who Hijacked Our Country

Tuesday, January 16, 2007

Bush Really IS a Uniter

Everyone laughed at Boy George in 2000 when he claimed he was “a uniter not a divider.” But seven years later, he’s making good on his promise.

A lot of Republicans and Independents, and most Democrats, are united against President Lyndon Johnson George W. Bush’s escalation of the War in Vietnam Iraq. (There really are some eerie parallels between a Lyndon Johnson speech 40 years ago and Bush’s “surge” speech from last week.)

Ted Kennedy got a standing ovation recently when he said “Iraq is George Bush’s Vietnam! Echoes of that disaster are all around us today!” One crucial difference is that Vietnam ended up uniting Republicans against those “Soft on Communism” Democrats who “lost” Vietnam. Democrats have spent the last few decades trying to fight off the label of “Soft On _________” (Communism, crime, drugs, terrorism, you name it).

But now the Democrats aren’t intimidated any more by those meaningless slogans. It’s gotten to the point where mainstream Democrats aren’t even afraid to be seen with leftwing groups like Move On and Win Without War. A former Democratic chairman said “We don’t want to come off looking like wimps,” but “we’re jumping all over ourselves now to see who can be the toughest on Bush and the war.”

It’s about time.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

I guess the thing that drives me crazy is that Bush got us into a war there was no way to win.

I think it's somewhat disingenuous when people say invading Iraq was the right thing to do but it was just done wrong. Eventually the Dems are going to have to pull our troops out of there and I just really hope we don't suffer politically for it.

January 16, 2007 at 4:55 PM  
Blogger Tom Harper said...

J. Marquis: Yup, I'm with you. The Iraqi invasion was wrong, period. There was no "right" way that we could have done it. None of the reasons Bush gave ever panned out. Since the invasion was wrong, we need to pull out now. If that causes a bloodbath (like they aren't having one already), we might as well leave now and get the bloodbath over with.

January 16, 2007 at 6:26 PM  
Anonymous jon8105 said...

I understood the war on terrorism which has branched off now to the War in Iraq, which I don't fully understand! However, it seems as though Bush has his mind set and is not actually (though he says he is) trying to get together with Congress and come up with an alternative means to ending the war. And a Surge in TROOPS is not it!

January 17, 2007 at 9:17 AM  
Blogger Tom Harper said...

Jon8105: The War on Terrorism is something we have to engage in; we can’t let our guard down. But unfortunately the phrase “war on terrorism” seems to be just an empty excuse for us to invade other countries and strip away constitutional protections here at home. And Bush’s “surge” idea is his stupidest yet.

January 17, 2007 at 11:14 AM  
Blogger Snave said...

The "mission" has actually been "accomplished" several times over.

First, Bush got us into Iraq based on Iraq having WMDs, and after a lot of searching, we can conclude Iraq had none at the time we invaded, and probably not for quite some time prior to the invasion. Saddam also had no "nucular" weapons and wasn't even developing any. So, "mission accomplished".

Another "mission" was to defeat the Iraqi army loyal to Saddam Hussein, and that was "accomplished" as well.

Next the "mission" changed again: our troops were in Iraq to "get Saddam" and overturn his regime. Well, his regime was overturned, he was caught, and we were able to get him executed (for whatever good that did). So THAT "mission" has been "accomplished".

So next it was to establish a democratic form of government in Iraq. We were shown a lot of footage of Iraqis voting in a "free election", and we saw lots of purple thumbs. Their new government may be a puppet of the U.S., but it has been installed. So Bush has "accomplished" that "mission".

Seems to me like the neocons are developing a pretty good record of "success". They have also been very good at changing the "mission", at making things up as they go along.

Is this anything like "mission creep"?

What was the real "mission" to begin with? What is the ultimate "mission", to eradicate Islam? If the "mission" is to stabilize the Middle East, that is one thing the neocons have not "accomplished", and a "mission" I doubt can be achieved by the use of our military.

It is INDEED time to stop this nuttiness. We have given Bush and buddies an inch here, they have taken advantage there, we've given them another inch, they've taken a few yards, we've given them ANOTHER inch, they've taken a few hundred yards... Let's not give them anything else but plenty of inches of rope with which to hang themselves.

January 21, 2007 at 11:46 AM  
Blogger Tom Harper said...

Snave: Yup, they've accomplished several of their "missions." Unfortunately a permanent quagmire 10,000 miles away, draining American lives and billions of dollars, is their longest-lasting "accomplishment." And we've given Bush and his henchmen enough rope to hang themselves with; I just wish they'd hurry up and do it.

January 21, 2007 at 1:49 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home