"How did it come to pass that an opposition's measure of a president's foreign policy was all or nothing, success or "failure"? The answer is that the political absolutism now normal in Washington arrived at the moment--Nov. 7, 2000--that our politics subordinated even a war against terror to seizing the office of the presidency." - Daniel Henninger - WSJ 11/18/05
"the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts." - George Orwell

Wednesday, March 29, 2006

CNN.com - Bush blames Iraq's instability on Hussein - Mar 29, 2006

CNN.com - Bush blames Iraq's instability on Hussein - Mar 29, 2006: "In his third speech this month to bolster public support for the war, Bush worked to counter critics who say the U.S. presence in the wartorn nation is fueling the insurgency."

Well, I don't know about that. Critics do have a point regarding the U.S. presence "fueling the insurgency;" but not the one they think. Without a U.S. presence, it is likely chaos would insue and the insurgency would have its way. I hope that is not what people want, but I bet they wouldn't mind.

"Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid accused Bush of sending "mixed messages" on Iraq that are hurting Iraq's chances for success." Now here is a swell twist by Reid. Part of the issues with Iraq evolve from Reid and those like him mixing the message.

Harry added, "the president can give all the speeches he wants, but nothing will change the fact that his Iraq policy is wrong. Harry's message is that the entire policy is wrong, doesn't this help mix? Two weeks ago, he told the American people that Iraqis would control their country by the end of the year. But last week, he told us our troops would be there until at least 2009."

Dear Harry, saying "Iraqis would control their country by the end of the year," doesn't mean U.S. troops would be out of the country by that time and you know it. If he doesn't, he is the idiot, liar I think he is.


© blogger templates 3 column | Webtalks