For 2 years there have been some who have argued that Bush's next step would be war with Iran. Yesterday, he took a giant step closer to that goal when he said in a news conference that he's sure that the Iranian government is supplying arms to the fighters in Iraq that are being used against US forces. His pledge is, "I'm going to do something about it." We all know that diplomacy is not his strong suit or his first choice so what does that leave?
No, W! We will not allow you to lead us into yet another quagmire. We will not allow you to widen this fiasco into a larger conflict that threatens to destabilize the entire region and perhaps the world. You want to protect our troops? Bring them home! You want to stabilize the region? Negotiate. Show each party what they must do to succeed and get our men and women home.
7 comments:
Roy,
You missed a great presentation by Reza Aslan this morning at the URC. I'll post a few comments on my blog later -- but he pretty much laid things out as to why we're in the mess we're in!
Maybe you should run...you sound like you think you would do a better job.
Anonymous,
would you vote for me?
It depends on whether or not you can handle criticism. Seriously...a lot of people whine about W and speak as if they know all the ins and outs of what it takes to be president. I'm in no way saying I agree with everything he's done, but I just think it's funny that people find it so easy to play "armchair president."
Anonymous,
I think you hit the nail on the head - "handle criticism..." We don't have to know the ins and outs of being president. We didn't run for the office. W says he is the decider so he is responsible for those decisions. If he makes the wrong one or lies to us about the reasoning behind one, he is responsible. He campaigned for the job and promised to do it before all of us.
You are right. He is the one that campaigned and ran and therefore is responsible. Has he made wrong decisions? It appears that he has. He has even admitted that he has (although maybe not regarding the same issues you take offense to). But did he knowingly lie to the American people? This is what saddens me. You obviously believe without a doubt that he did. In fact, if you rely on the media to give an accurate portrayal of how the rest of the country feels, it would appear that most of the country believes the same. But did he? He says he didn't. He was given bad intel. Did the people that gave him the intel lie? Maybe they did, but that's not the point I'm trying to make. There has not been sufficient proof to say that Bush knowingly lied (unless you believe Michael Moore). I know that's the popular sentiment right now...it's the "in" thing to bash W. Are people actually thinking for themselves or just following the media and popular sentiment like sheep? Nixon lied...there was proof. Clinton lied...there was proof. What ever happened to "innocent until proven guilty?" Does that just apply to people we like or should it apply to everyone? If Bush did lie, then I hope one day there will be proof. If he in fact did lie, then he should be held accountable and pay the consequences.
Be critical of Bush all you want...that's your right. Disagree with him by all means! But please be critical in the areas that are known. Don't slander the guy regarding things that have not been proven. I'm sure that your pastoral heart would agree with me at least on that.
Boy Anonymous... I'm afraid we're going to have to differ in a serious way here. First off, I'm not a big fan of Bill Clinton for a bunch of reasons, but to even raise his name here is silly. He lied about an extra-marital affair. Not many folk who had them would willingly admit that before the entire world. Bush lied about issues that led us to a war and have cost over 3000 American lives, many times that in serious injuries, perhaps 100's of thousands of Iraqis, and have cost what $400 billion!
His administration began by saying there were WMD's while all of the UN inspectors said "no." Then they told us they knew where the weapons were. Of course they weren't. Then they tried to tie Saddam to 9/11 and to supporting radical Islamist groups - all of which were known to be untrue by everyone in the world who even gave a cursory thought to what was going on.
Bad intel? No, he had a wide variety of intel sources, he just chose to use the ones that fit his pre-conceptions and fit his plans.
If he didn't lie to us then he is more stupid than I ever imagined. I think I'd rather that he lied.
Post a Comment