Today on Blogcritics
Home » Same Old Song and Dance

Same Old Song and Dance

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Is there a broken recording of President Bush’s speeches that he gives about Iraq?

Speaking to American armed services members in South Carolina, the president said that the unpopular Iraq war is still winnable, and that we’re fighting the terrorists there so we don’t have to fight them here.

“Al Qaeda is in Iraq and they’re there for a reason,” Bush said. “Surrendering the future of Iraq for al Qaeda would be a disaster to our country.”

I’m sorry, but does anyone out there take what this man has to say seriously anymore? It’s like watching a Risk player lose everything but one guy and say he’s still going to win. Or the player with $1 left in Monopoly say they are going to make a comeback to win against an opponent with all the property.

And now Bush is saying al Qaeda’s leader in Iraq has issued an audio statement saying he’s not going to rest until he attacks Washington D.C.

My, my, my, this is starting to sound like the movie “V for Vendetta,” where a masked man “terrorizes” Britain out of their comatose state to see they are being ruled by a dictator. The man, known only as “V,” has set the fifth of November as the day of his reckoning.

The finale of the film is Parliament being leveled by explosives as thousands of Brits watch with music playing in the background.

“Some say that Iraq is not a part of the broader war on terror,” Bush said. “They claim that the organization called al Qaeda in Iraq is an Iraqi phenomenon — that it’s independent of Osama bin Laden and it’s not interested in attacking America. That would be news to Osama bin Laden.”

How does Bush know this? Where’s the evidence that led him to such a conclusion? I’ve seen enough episodes of “C.S.I.” to know there’s something missing here.

And that something is the link between Iraq and al Qaeda. I just watched the video posted of Bush tying together Iraq and al Qaida, and, um, it’s a knot that’s not very tight.

But this war on terror, none of it, has been a tightly tied knot, and it never will be. Why? Because you can’t win a war that’s fought on an idea. We kill Osama bin Laden, and 50 people are right there to take his place. We kill them, and another 100 are there to step up.

It’s a violent circle. And, unless we rid the world of all extremists, we’re fighting a losing battle. I don’t think we should be eliminating anyone from them world, most of all those who have differing views on the way the world works.

Hey, if someone wants to kill me, there’s nothing I can do to prevent that, except stay clear of them. But, I’m not going to live my life in fear that one day it’s all going to be over, because I’m human, and my time’s going to come anyway.

If it’s tomorrow, or 60 years from now, death’s going to get me eventually, so why live in fear of it?

That’s exactly what this administration has built this war on terror thought. Our fear. They milked us for all we were worth after 9/11, and now they have to continue scaring us about another Sept. 11 attack being just around the corner.

But here’s something they aren’t telling us: It’s all smoke and mirrors. And eventually, we’re going to see through the fog, and adjust our eyes to see the real issue that faces this nation: That George W. Bush, and everyone in the White House administration, are the real fear-mongers who will say anything and everything to convince us we should be scared of the threats that lurk around the world.

Powered by

About S. Manley

  • Franco

    Shaun,

    I know I get tried of hearing it too. And for the most part I, like you, know that we are all going to die, some of us sooner or later. So I too choose not to live in a miserable fear each day.

    Where we part paths is in giving up. You say ”But this war on terror, none of it, has been a tightly tied knot, and it never will be. Why? Because you can’t win a war that’s fought on an idea. We kill Osama bin Laden, and 50 people are right there to take his place. We kill them, and another 100 are there to step up.”

    I say, every war ever fought has been fought on an idea, and the idea of the victor prevails. Victor is the key world here. Thank about it, can you show me one war that was not fought on an idea.

    We (modern civilization) face an enemy (Islamic militancy) that has the stomach to win at any cost, to be the victor. They play for keeps and they premeditate specifically targeting and killing civilians, including women and children as their specialty. Tonight and tomorrow someone’s husband, wife, mother, father, son or daughter will be killed at the hand of an Islamic terrorist. You’ll get to read about on the internet.

    Not all of us have the stomach for what it takes to be the victor against such mid-evil barbarism and that still dose not cause me concern, because today we have enough that do. What concerns me though is that those who don’t are trying to reel in those who do. That is the most horrific thing of all.

    There are more people in the world by an exceedingly large margin who oppose Islamic militants then who support them. That and that alone gives me leave of daily fear. However it never leaves me free of concern. Not because of what our administration tells us, but what I can research on my own on the Internet from countless information sights. I can assimilate this information. I do not need the administration to confirm what is happening, its been happening long before this administration existed.

    If the administration advises me of an increase in terror threats inside the county where I live as they just have, I add that to my data of other information. I do all of this because the enemy is committed to victory and he is going to have to kill me or my children after me in order to have it.

    If the collation forces and US pulled out of Iraq tonight, it would not stop the killing of innocent people of all ages throughout the world. It would not stop attacks in the EU, the USA, or the greater ME.

    Pulling out would be a handed over victory for Islamic militants in Iraq and would create the largest terrort megaplex in the world. Not to mention the psychological boost to radical Islam the world over. And your numbers of 10 and 50 and 100 would turn into 10,000,000, 50,000,000 and 100,000.000 or higher. Add to this Iran and the bomb and, well you will be beyond fear, you will be shitting in your pants if you still had an ass left.

    I would like to see the new Congress deal with that! No I would’nt, because they could not.

    To give up our fight in Iraq and to think that Iraq cannot find a means of assembling some control and order against the above alternative, is not only signing our death warrant, it is untrue, unworthy, and unrealistic given some perceptible facts.

    (1) Coalition and US force on the ground, those with the stomach for it, are making progress. The generals dealing with it my sugar coat it, as would anyone facing such a media today, but they are not lying.

    (2) Saddam did it for years. Is there not something that can do the same without using his means and methods. I believe there isn’t and I’m not willing to bet my country on it anywhy.

    Failure is not an option!

  • http://adreamersholiday.blogspot.com Lee Richards

    Franco:
    If you have some definite suggestions, plans, ideas, solutions, and measureable goals I, for one, would love to hear them.

    Explain, please, how the U.S. military in Iraq will solve a complex insurgency, alter a tribal culture, erase factional hatreds, and fundamentally change people’s minds throughout the Middle East and Muslim world.

    Tell us, specifically, what we should be doing militarily, organizationally, politically, financially, and with technology and diplomacy to get out of the quicksand we’ve placed our troops in.

    If you’re just parroting “stay the course” along with Bush, I think that boat sank awhile back (and him with it.)

  • Doug Hunter

    So your telling us to be afraid of this administration? Talk about using fear and demonization. Thanks for playing.

  • http://adreamersholiday.blogspot.com Lee Richards

    #3:
    This White House IS to be feared.

    In a recent Washington Post article the former commandant of the Marine Corps(Gen. P.X. Kelley, appointed by Reagan) and a former WH lawyer for the Reagan administration(Robert F. Turner) wrote about the Bush WH’s recent statement that it could “interpret” Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, which prescribes minimum standards of treatment for detainees:

    The two authors said:

    “we cannot in good conscience defend a decision that we believe has compromised our national honor and that may well promote the commission of war crimes by Americans and place at risk the welfare of captured American military forces for generations to come.”

    “…Our troops deserve those protections, and we betray their interests when we gratuitously “interpret” key provisions of the conventions in a manner likely to undermine their effectiveness.

    “Policymakers should also keep in mind that violations of Common Article 3 are “war crimes” for which everyone involved–potentially up to and including the president of the United States–may be tried in any of the other 193 countries that are parties to the conventions.”

    An administation so wrecklessly and totally guided by the “gut feelings” alone of one man is desperately to be feared.

  • moonraven

    [Edited]

    The real point in all of this is that the US government is not going to rid the world of extremists, as it is patently clear that THEY ARE THE EXTREMISTS.

    If the Bush Gang had not set fire to the Reichstag…er, demolished the WTC, and had not invaded two countries who clearly had nothing to do with that particular smoke and mirrors gambit, possibly the only thing folks would be fussing about: the Israeli/Palestinian conflict–and that’s been going on as long as the civil war in Colombia!

    Interesting that the US is providing “military aid” to both the Israeli and Colombian governments to keep those conflicts going.

    Only a fool would not see the writing on the wall in this case.

  • http://LesPaulisanexcellentguitarplayerwithanadmirablegraspofgoodjazz. bliffle

    Bush says whatever he has to say to advance his position, without regard to truth, proof, or sense. He does that because no one in his life has ever held him accountable. He’s a spoiled brat. The more concessions made to him the more he demands.

  • REMF

    ^ But Bliff, don’t forget, he did learn how to fly a jet over Texas during the Vietnam War.
    – MCH

  • moonraven

    If Bush can fly a plane, I am an astronaut. The guy fell off a bicycle, for Chrissake.

  • REMF

    Honest, moonraven, he did. He helped protect Houston from Viet Cong attacks!

  • Nancy

    The hell he did; he admitted he left Texas to go work on some guy’s campaign – & even that he spent most of his time drunk. He was AWOL, but poppy Bush bought his way out of it, as usual.

  • moonraven

    MCH,

    Let’s add another 100 bucks to the bet where you are betting that Obama will be the next president and add that you are betting that Bush can actually fly a plane.

    First time I ever heard of someone with an IQ of 79 being allowed to fly ANYTHING–not even an OUshak carpet….

  • Baronius

    Great comments, Franco.

  • REMF

    “He was AWOL, but poppy Bush bought his way out of it, as usual.”

    But that can’t possibly be true, Nancy. When Tim Russert asked Laura Bush how she could be sure that GW reported for duty and attended Dannelly AFB in ’72, she replied, “Because he told me did.”

    He wouldn’t lie to his own wife about something like that, would he Nancy?
    – MCH

  • REMF

    moonraven;
    No bet re GW’s flying. But I’ll be ready to collect the other $100 after my man Obama wins!!
    – MCH

  • moonraven

    Pooey–and I thought you had the courage of your convictions….

  • REMF

    ^ So you think he lied to his wife?

%d bloggers like this: