Mudcat Café message #1593191 The Mudcat Café TM
Thread #62901   Message #1593191
Posted By: Amos
29-Oct-05 - 12:41 PM
Thread Name: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
Subject: RE: BS: Popular Views of the Bush Administration
I find it most odd that you believe the cost of in blood and treasure is made worse by those who oppose the war. The voices of those who don't go along with this escapade in blood, guts and idiocy may well have added a tenth of a per cent. But I think the real stress induced by vocal opponents to this war is in the uncomfortable minds of those who settled for slaughter without trying very hard to find another path.

Let me point out that hundreds of billions of dollars and tens of thousands of human bodies have been poured into this rathole because of one decision, and one decision only. When you take un that sort of command responsibility, you by God owe those you work for a due diligence in understanding. It is not clear to me why the half of American voters who did so wanted to invest that much power into the hands of a man who was flagrantly inarticulate, dumb as a rock, with a history of extreme alcohol abuse and cultish epiphanies. But no matter. Once they had done so, he was obliged to find out before he acted, and he did not do so.

What Clarissa P Estes or anyone else outside the Oval Office said or thought is scarcely germane to the lethal bloodshed unleashed by his single stupid decision. Not the only such, but the most bloodthirsty.

So let's make this clear: I am not going to shut up just because you think criticizing the President is aiding and abetting the enemy; that is the logic of totalitarianism, in case you didn't notice. My moral obligation is to speak freely in good conscience to the truth as I see it.

THere is only one possible rationale that could justify Bush's decision to invade Iraq. If he had conceived that this "common sandbox" strategy, drawing Muslim extremists from all around Allah-land to one battlefield because we had tactical superiority in a more traditional military scenario and they had tactical superiority in continuing their hide, kill, and flee methods. Like the British army of 1770, we aren't build for small S&D missions as our primary military approach -- we build BIG war machinery.

But I am pretty sure that no such grand strategic decision formed any part of his watery thought processes on the issue. No mention of such a strategy have I ever heard, except in my own discussions. So I am of the opinion that this was just an unforeseen after-effect of his simple, bullheaded decision to invade Iraq and topple Saddam for Poppa, or some such foolish notion.

And don't try to get him off the charge of intentional falsification. He had been told long before his State of the Union address that the Nigerian uranium issue was bogus, and he trotted out the false story anyway. Then he tried to pin it on the CIA.

He asked for war-plans for Iraq BEFORE September 11th and immediately after it he (or his string-pullers) decided to tack it onto the military plan as fast as they could. It had nothing to do with WMD at the time.

He has not come forth and described his ACTUAL discussions or strategic planning or intell. even years after the fact. Why not?

He has done little to pursue Osama bin Laden, the alleged mastermind behind the extremist attacks. Why not?

Don't get me wrong -- if the people of Iraq want a constitution and want citizen's rights and protected democratic priveleges, they should have it, and I am not adverse to helping them get it. But there are higher purposes toward which this nation could steer its diminishing wealth than getting caught in an extremist crossfire fueled by people who cannot even say "separation of church and state", especially at the hands of a leader (so-called) who doesn't much believe in such separation himself -- another clear indication that he is unqualified for the job. If this is leadership, amigo, then I ain't following.

A