Bush's Iraq Plan

Bush was in Cleveland the other day on the 3rd Anniversary of Operation Avenge Daddy and he claimed that HE never said that there was a link between Saddam and 911.

However, they showed a tape of Bush saying in his State of the Union speech of January 28, 2003 where he claimed that Saddam harbors terrorists and all but directed the attack.

So, the 'Niger and Yellowcake' argument turned out to be false.
The 'WMD' argument turned out to be false.
And now he says that he didn't believe there was a link between Saddam and 911.

And according to Don Rumsfeld, the Iraqis will welcome us with 'open arms'. Open arms full of IEDs thats what.

So, why are we in Iraq and why did 2300 die and about 30,000 wounded?

So this is Bush's plan for the Iraq War. Stay there until the end of his Presidency. He said yesterday that it will be up to 'future' Presidents to decide when and how the troops will come home. Not him, of course, because that would be an admission of a mistake, and THIS President doesn't make mistakes. And by 'staying the course' illustrates that he 'steadfast'. Steadfast, not stubborn and thickeheaded. This way he will go down in history as 'a War President' focused on 'keeping us safe'. To him Iraq and the War On Terror are one and the same. If keeping us safe was the goal, he could start by tightening our borders, but that would discourage the flow of cheap labor into the US.

Being steadfast on Iraq would also show his critics that he is not a wimp, an accusation that dogged his father to such an extent that he had to jump out of a plane at 75 as an indication how much that accusation bugged him. It would also allow him some redemption for attacking veterans like John Kerry and John Murtha who criticized his policy despite the fact they actually fought in a war zone. Being 'steadfast' also gets to show people that he is in it for the long haul, till the end of his Presidency, another charge levelled against his father for not 'going all the way' during Gulf War I. Another plus: If the next President is a Democrat and he/she begins to withdraw troops, he and his party will be accused of being 'soft' on terrorism, (like the 1960s, being 'soft' on Communism in Viet Nam) and accused of betraying the troops. Bush I tried this with Somalia. Put 'boots on the ground' there with no real purpose. Not nation building? Police action? Humanitarian mission? He didn't have a clue. Then a Blackhawk helicopter gets shot down, Hollywood makes a movie about it and now it's 'Hollywood's' fault for 'losing' Somalia. Clinton was stuck with the mess.

But none of these actions explains why we went in Iraq in the first place. All fabrications. Even some of his neocon supporters are backing off on their support, arguing that what is going on in Iraq right now, is not the best way to spread democracy or American values. But at least the neocons got their chance to put their ideology on display, since they were frustrated that Bill Clinton did not let them do.

Rather gets fired for not checking his sources. Who got fired for all this crap?

So the gameplan for the future is an old tried, true and tired one: Blame the media. They are already starting their gameplan for the battle to come. Some future President will start the withdrawal, and the GOP will accuse him/her of 'losing' Iraq. The US didn't learn Russia's lesson - stop trying to govern Central Asia. It didn't work for the Russians in Afghanistan and its not working in Iraq.

So yesterday, Bush was in West Virginia talking to a 'sympathetic and go easy on me' crowd of military families. Of course, not a discouraging word would be heard, because, after all, whose family wants to admit that their son or daughter died or was injured in a war where there was no sense of urgency, a war designed to placate the chicken hawks of the Republican Right. And incidently, some of the neocons are saying that Iraq is not a good example of putting the American Way on display.

And in a typical Bush 'media event' a woman was chosen from the audience to point out that her son sends home 'CD after CD' of good works in Iraq, but the 'mainstream media' just won't show them/ If all Bush wanted to do was 'help the children of Iraq' let him contribute to a charity, like everyone else. But this is a war and war isn't pretty. It is insulting to Bob Woodruff of ABC News, his cmaerman, Richard Engle of NBC News or the late David Bloom to hear windbags like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly claim that journalists only portray the war from their 'balconies'. Which news source does this woman and the neocons watch? And don't forget, when the war started 3 years ago, the Pentagon 'embedded' journalists among the troops, so as to get a pro-Administration slant.

Yup, its PBS's fault that there were no WMD in Saddam's Iraq. And it was CNBC's fault, that its parent, NBC didn't oust Saddam 15 years ago. And it was Dan Rather's fault for not finding a link between Niger, Saddam and yellowcake. Same old, same old.

Meanwhile:

The national debt is 9 Trillion dollars, $30,000 for every man, woman and child in the US. But in 2000, Dick Cheney said "We are not politicians, we are CEOs". Obviously these 'CEOs' are running the country like Andy Fastow ran ENRON.

I turned on Fox News last night and Hannity and Combs reported that Bush 'created' 4 million jobs, but that isn't being reported because of the 'Bush haters'. Where the hell are these jobs? India? China? Do these jobs pay enough to support a middle class lifestyle? I've been looking for a job for 4 years now. I guess I'll have to wait for a 'future President' to solve that problem just it'll take a bigger man (or woman) to solve the Iraqi mess.

Clinton lied, nobody died.
Bush lies every day.

Guess which one got impeached?

Will this country EVER wake up?