Today on Blogcritics
Home » Only John Kerry can win George Bush’s war….

Only John Kerry can win George Bush’s war….

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

American political history is rewriting itself and on an ever faster time scale. First we invaded Iraq because of weapons of mass destruction and ties to terrorists, then it was because of the possibility of Iraq starting weapons of mass destruction related programs and giving them to terrorists (after they actually developed working relationships to those terrorists).

NOW some say that we can’t leave Iraq while the insurgents are so powerful and that we have to reach some vaguely defined level of ”pacification”. Is the newest reason we invaded Iraq to fight the resistance that arose after we invaded it? I thought the reason we fought Iraq was to get rid of Saddam? If the resistance takes over the country at some point now, is that the biggest tragedy? Do you see a US friendly democracy being created anytime soon?

This will really be a ”war without end” if we can’t even settle on who the war was fought against. Saddam is out of power, didn’t we win the war already? What is this new war we ”have” to fight against the Iraqi resistance? George Bush didn’t mention this war before we invaded Iraq, or did I miss that?

If John Kerry is elected he could pull the forces out of Iraq in a reasonably short time, unconstrained by George Bush’s pathological fear of admitting failure (he has no problem being a failure, just admitting it). If Kerry pulled the forces out of Iraq, he would actually be putting a ”mission accomplished” on all the reasons George Bush sent us to war for. Remember those reasons? Threat of weapons of mass destruction (no such threat now exists in Iraq), connections between Saddam and Al Qaeda (with Saddam in jail we can assume those connections are gone), the evil acts of the regime of Saddam Hussein against the Iraqi people (Saddam is in jail and awaiting trial for those crimes).

So, let’s elect John Kerry, declare victory and leave. George Bush has gone into a death spiral of justifications on Iraq (of course they aren’t the deaths of anybody HE knows personally). As each justification doesn’t work out, the new ones always seem to involve a longer war, never a shorter one. Our soldiers are too important to waste in covering the President’s political butt. George Bush’s flip flops on why we are in Iraq are causing a war we can never win. Elect John Kerry to ”win” the war in Iraq.

Big Time Patriot

Powered by

About Big Time Patriot

  • http://cranialcavity.net Marc

    The confusion of why we went, how we went, and why we must stay is in your mind and may not be based on actual reality.

    You are correct in one thing. Kerry will pull anything and everything out of Iraq as soon as possible. Regardless of the outcome of his actions.

    His long history of being anti-war dates to his Yale commencement speech and still is the only thing he has been consistent on in 35 years.

  • http://expatcat.typepad.com felix

    Anti-war? That bastard!
    Just because he’s seen it first hand, perhaps?

  • Eric Olsen

    which is why we have civilians in charge of the military, because contrary to the stereotypical image of military leaders being hawks, they often tend to be the least anxious to use military power: they want all conditions perfect, which they never are, and most have seen action up close, which is always a horrible thing. War is hell, but the alternatives are sometimes worse, especially in the long run.

  • http://expatcat.typepad.com felix

    Which, by your logic, makes Dick Cheney more qualified to send soldiers into battle than John Kerry.
    And hasn’t that just worked out really well?

  • Eric Olsen

    I agree with the decision to send soldiers to Iraq, although disagree with elements of the execution

  • http://www.bigtimepatriot.com Big Time Patriot

    The point I’m making in this post is that whether you agree or disagree on the need to have started the war on Iraq in the first place, George Bush does not show any signs of being able to EVER stop the war.

    The reasons Bush gave for the war are mostly accomplished, and yet Bush has no plan to “win” the war.

    Bush has not defined what “winning the war” even might be. If there is a democratic election and anti-us candidates win, do you really believe George Bush will order the troops out if a truly “sovereign” Iraq asks them to? That would be allowing “foreign leaders” to decide US policy, something Bush is against correct? So a democratic election in Iraq would probably not even be considered a “victory” in Iraq. Bush and his “moving target” of justifications has not shown the Leadership to lead the war to an end. He had enough leadership to start a war, but shows no sign of being able to BE a “peace-time president”, so why should Bush even WANT peace in Iraq? Wouldn’t fit into the “Fearful America” theme of his re-election campaign.

  • http://www.tude.com/ Hal Pawluk

    Just out of curiosity, which of the 21 reasons for going to war (per Foreign Policy magazine, opens in new window) did you accept?