[GCFL-discuss] The Thick Plot

[gcfl-discuss at gcfl.net]

OK, since you asked about the debate, I am unimpressed with both
participants. Bush fed us his usual bland string of pastel lies, with a
childish grin on his face, while Kerry politely declined to call him on
it.

A few things Kerry missed:

When things are not going right, you have to be honest with the troops.
Saying "things are going well" when it is obvious on the front lines that
they are not, is no way to keep up morale. Saying "we're giving them the
equipment they need" does not count as "support" for  troops sent into
action without body army, in humvees that have no armor either. Rhetoric
about "sending mixed messages" is no excuse for blindly continuing a
failing strategy. Someone has to say, there is a better way, and it will
lead to an acceptable outcome that will do some justice to the sacrifices
made -- which the current policy will not.

YES, it WAS a diversion from the war against al Qaeda. Now, we are there.
Now, we have opened up territory that was CLOSED to al Qaeda. Zawahiri
wouldn't have dared show his face in Iraq while Hussein was in power --
Hussein didn't allow any rivals of any political persuasion. We weren't
being attacked by al Qaeda in Iraq until we went into Iraq. Now, we are
there, we owe it to the people there, and to our own security, to find a
resolution that people in Iraq can live with. Bush can't find a way.
Kerry might.

The reason we need to call in other nations is simple: there is no longer
any chance that any government installed by American arms will retain
credibility with the people of Iraq long enough to establish stability.
We cannot just pull out, because that would leave a power vacuum with NO
security or peace or development. But we cannot restore order either. So,
we need other outside forces to join us, who will have the credibility
(with native Iraqis) to establish security without tainting whatever
Iraqi government emerges. George Bush can't do that: he is the one who
said he could do it alone.

The first and biggest lie that Bush told the American people about Iraq
is that it would be easy. He said we could do it with far less troops
than the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff reported. The president
was wrong, the chairman was correct. He said we would be welcomed by
cheering throngs. We weren't. For a few weeks, a fair number of people
cheered the fall of Hussein al-Takriti, but most of them want us gone. He
said it would be quick. Now he has the nerve to say "Its hard." He should
have told us that in the first place, soberly, instead of cheerfully
rushing us off to a war he wasn't prepared to lead. (Kerry DID manage to
say once that Bush said we could fight the war on the cheap, and it
wasn't true).

Bush has the nerve to talk about completing the mission. Kerry should
have asked him "Oh, I thought Mission Accomplished was declared in May
2003."

Talking about how much money he is spending is no answer to questions
about why he cut specific programs to put more local police on the street
and support local fire departments. It is also unworthy of a Republican
-- isn't that the party that used to criticize throwing money at a
problem as a way to solve it?

Kerry should have called him on the "flip-flop" nonsense. As a U.S.
senator, Kerry voted to authorize the only president we had to act in a
critical situation. That does not immunize the president from criticism
when his actions prove to be a failure.

And when it comes to character: I would not have used the noun, "liar,"
but I would have used the verb, and said "George W. Bush has lied to the
American people, to congress, and to  the troops he sent into action."
MAYBE I would have said "factually challenged."

When George mindlessly talks about "freedom" -- someone should point out
that the what is important to the people of Iraq is different from what
is important to the people of the United States, and different from what
is important to the people of Iran, and Jordan, etc. There is no common
ideology being pursued by all the people of the world. Everyone has a
slightly different definition of "freedom." Most Iraqis would like to be
"free" of us, of the al Qaeda types who ran in after we knocked off
Hussein, of what's left of Hussein's forces... there is no force in Iraq
that can establish peace and order, nor is there any outside force that
enough people in Iraq really have confidence in. THAT is why we need a
broader international effort, to put together a force that will be
acceptable to Iraqis for a transition period. Otherwise, we will just
find more and more people in Iraq turning to one or another of the forces
that seem to be shooting at our troops.

Siarlys


________________________________________________________________
Get your name as your email address.
Includes spam protection, 1GB storage, no ads and more
Only $1.99/ month - visit http://www.mysite.com/name today!