Hello Obama, Goodbye George

The World Applauds

obama

In four days, the world will witness a historic barrier-shattering event: The inauguration of Barack H. Obama as the forty-fourth president of our once great country.

I say once great country because our country is no longer great. Through the petty self-serving intrigues of the, thank God, outgoing administration, the United States of America has been brought to its knees. Because of the indifference, carelessness, values myopia or fear of the electorate we have twice elected what Miami Herald columnist, Leonard Pitts derisively termed a ‘really awful president.’ The result of this misappropriation of votes has been eight years of controlled governmental chaos.

I truly hope those with the vision of a blind man, who voted for G.W. Bush are injured as much as I have been by the election of this not even mediocre individual. Ironically, G.W. is looking for history to redeem his Presidency, but as Mr. Pitts points out, it ain’t in the cards. Instead, look for the long list of missteps and misdeeds of this administration to grow and grow as the media and history examine this ‘truly awful presidency.’ gb-dc

Barack Obama ran for election as a medium of change and what a change it will be. Think about it, Bush and Obama are direct opposites and all the things Bush lacked Obama has. The semi-aristocratic white Bush versus the poor black

Obama, born and raised by a single white mother. Obama is charismatic, eloquent, even tempered, logical, values ability over party hacks, is a born leader, empathizes with the common man and is smart—very, very smart. Maybe the most intelligent president ever.

So America, take heart, we may have been knocked down, but we’re not knocked out. Change is coming. You can sense it, feel it, smell it. On January 20th we will see it. For the first time in eight years, our president will be a leader. And keep you fingers crossed, a savior.

How do I spell change. That’s easy, C-O-M-P-E-T-E-N-C-Y.

January 16, 2009. Tags: , , , , , , . economy, George W. Bush, Obama, politics, President, President Bush. Leave a comment.

The Far Right Just Doesn’t Get It

There’s a saying I occasionally hear that goes something like this: Republicans are great at running campaigns and winning elections, but after they win, they don’t know how to govern.

Taking a hard look over the last eight years only adds to the credibility of the saying. Yes, the Republicans won two hard fought elections, which were followed by what could easily be described as eight years of chaos.

This Republican led stewardship of the country has led us to the precipice of collapse. The Bush administration has us on the brink of a depression reminiscent of the Republican led depression of 1928.

Has the gross malfeasance of the last eight years given the Far Right pause? Have they discovered contrition? Do they finally understand that the government works better with an intelligent President and legislators? Do they now realize that cronyism instead of qualified appointments can backfire. Is it now apparent to them that the overall health of the country trumps pet issues like gay marriage and right to life? After all what does it gain them to make abortion illegal if they loose their country?

I once read that Osama bin Laden’s plan for America isn’t to destroy us overtly with invasion or attacks. That would be well beyond their abilities. His plan is to destroy us financially from within. Given our current situation I’d say his plan is working with the help of our President and Wall Street.

So the question is, do we dare give the Republicans four more years? Four more years that could actually push us over the cliff.

Hint: If you’re interested in saving this country, elect the most intelligent candidate.

September 29, 2008. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , . candidate, Democrats, economy, erotic, McCain, Obama, Palin, politics, President, President Bush, Republicans, Wall Street. 1 comment.

One Person’s Slant on Reality Shows

A couple weeks ago, I threw a question out to some of my readers, to wit; Reality Shows–love ’em or hate ’em? We’ll most people that answered, they didn’t like them, but one young lady’s answer caught my attention. She too, didn’t like them, but she didn’t like them with emphasis. Therefore I decided to give you, my other readers a chance to read Nanette’s diatribe.

I hate the damn things! Whatever happened to good television shows with a plot? Where are the sitcom? I found my 13 and 16 year olds watching one of many they watch one Sat and I just went off. I told them girls, this is not reality.
Reality is loosing your job, wondering where you next meal is coming.
Reality is trying to deal with the price of gas to get to work.
Reality is deciding whether to pay for said gas to get to work or save the money to buy groceries.
Reality is knowing you can’t get to work without buying the gas and if you don’t go to work you can’t pay for the gas to get to work. Are you still with me?
Reality is working you fingers to the bone and not getting paid for your pound of flesh that you gave at the office.

Reality is knowing that at no time during my day will a billionaire, a hot farmer or Flava Flav (God forbid) rush in to sweep me off my feet. I will not be voted America’s next top model, top chef or idol. There will be no dancing of the stars across my office. I will not need to know who the mole is because we’re all just survivors here. And to top it all off, I don’t think I can dance, I know that I can. Even if America has not told me that I can.

That’s reality. Just wanted to make my case. Sorry so long winded.

Nanette

God, I love it? Wouldn’t just love to see Nannette tear into Darth Cheny and G.W. Shrub? Go get ’em Nanette!

June 27, 2008. Tags: , , , , , , , . George W. Bush, Humor, politics, President, President Bush, Reality Shows, satire. Leave a comment.

The Bushman Blew it – Invaded Wrong Country

I originally posted this absurdity in June of 2004. I decided to post it again<a

What’s with the smirk on GW’s face when asked a question? Does that mean he’s going Lie? No wonder Osama don’t like Bushman. I don’t either and I’m Republican

It’s becoming more and more obvious that our esteemed president Bushman targeted the wrong country in his quest to establish a beacon of freedom in the Middle East. Who would have thought that the most powerful country in the history of the world (sounds impressive doesn’t it, I read that somewhere) would have trouble swallowing a country of a mere twenty-five million inhabitants.

After all when we were one of the only two superpowers in the world we did quite a juggling act by occupying two populous former enemies, Germany and Japan, while taking on the North Koreans and the Chinese while holding the Soviets at bay. Oh that’s right North Korea was a United Nation approved police action but who needs the United Nations.

In hindsight (isn’t hindsight wonderful) Bushman got it wrong. He/we shouldn’t have used tiny Kuwait as a staging area to invade Iraq. He/we should have used Iraq as a staging area to attack tiny Kuwait. Doesn’t that make a lot more sense. I’ll bet even the Bushman administration could manage 800,000 Kuwaiti’s with a hundred and thirty-five thousand highly trained U.S. soldiers plus then Iraq wouldn’t dare invade Kuwait again.

G.W. should have taken a page from the Gipper’s playbook. You didn’t see Ronnie taking on the Soviets by invading Poland did you or the Chinese Communists by invading Taiwan. No he got it right. He took on the dangerous Peoples Republic of Granada and now we have a beacon of freedom in the Caribbean that is spreading democracy in this erstwhile dangerous area.

Back to Kuwait. Once Kuwait was pacified we could have set up a Jeffersonian Democracy, changed the official language to English and made facial hair unlawful, especially on women. Think, then if we came across a Middle Eastern type with a mustache that couldn’t speak English, Bingo, we have a bonafide Terrorist/Insurgent and we could extradite him to Saudi Arabia to be be be beheaded. That seems to be a popular thing with Arabs.

And speaking of a beacon of Freedom in the Middle East, a place to admire, a country to emulate, we could build replications of the World Trade Centers there. Wouldn’t that p*ss Osama off but this time when he comes, we’ll have a little surprise for him. Sssssh don’t tell anyone but we’ll put a force field around Twin Towers – Two and his planes will bounce off and explode harmlessly on the ground. We could do it after all we are the most powerful country in the history of the world!!!!!

May 7, 2008. Tags: , , , , , , , , , . Cheney, George W. Bush, Humor, Islam, politics, President, President Bush, Rumsfeld, Saudi Arabia. 2 comments.

Too Much Clout for Iowa (and New Hampshire)! Too much Power for Evengelicals!

Am I mad. You bet I am. Every four years, two people get nominated to run for President of our fair country–all fifty states. Do I have any say in who gets nominated? Hell No! Do you have any say in who gets nominated? Not unless you live in Iowa or New Hampshire or possibly South Carolina. That’s right. The caucuses and primaries in two, sometimes three, rarely four under populated, relatively insignificant states, for better or worse (usually worse) always choose our candidates for president. The other ninety-seven percent of the population can go to hell.

Now, if you happen to live in one of the three or four deciding states, please don’t take what I say personal, you lucky dogs. I personally think the time for a national primary has arrived, but assuming things aren’t going to change, you people have an obligation to choose the best candidate for the rest of the country and frankly you haven’t. In hindsight one could argue that in 2000 and 2004 you gave us the worst candidate and Iowa, in 2008 you may have done it again. Mike (Huckster) Huckabee?

Ahhh. The Evangelicals. I’m about to ruffle some feathers here. It never ceases to amaze me how selfish this group can be. To the detriment of everything else their main concern always seems to be social issues. They got their man in 2000/2004 and look what it got us, two wars (one unprovoked and unwarranted), two trillion in additional debt, three, soon to be four dollar a gallon gas, disdain around the world, tax relief for the rich and an epidemic of corporate greed and fraud to name a few.

To the Evangelicals, think about it. Do social issues have anything to do with prosecuting a war, dealing with national emergencies, dealing with our former friends and enemies overseas, dealing with the energy crisis, curbing our national debt, providing affordable health care, or dealing with terrorists?

Mike (Huckster) Huckabee? The only candidate that has stated he believes in creation. Forget billions of years of sedimentary and fossil evidence. Forget Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons. For this man, the earth and life upon it began seven thousand years ago. (sometime after the first pyramid was built.)

Yes, Mike Huckabee is likable and charismatic, but I think we’ve learned that charisma doesn’t run a smooth government. The man was an apprentice to Jerry Falwell. He was a preacher for chrissake. Evangelicals, if you want to be taken seriously, go do some good in the world and stop trying to shove your religion down my throat.

January 4, 2008. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , . candidate, ethics, Evangelicals, fairness, George W. Bush, lobbists, overated, Overzealous, politicians, politics, President, President Bush, primary, pro life, science, Terrorism. Leave a comment.

The Bush Legacy

11735416.jpg

The Bottom Line
Where previous books I’ve read on the Bush adventure have taken us to and briefly beyond our initial occupation, Fiasco takes through 2004, with in depth analysis of the insurgency.

The brand new book by Thomas Ricks’– Fiasco, provides the reader with an informative assessment of the conception, planning, prosecution and aftermath of the unprovoked invasion of Iraq. Intentional or not, Fiasco ends up as an indictment of, not only the Bush Administration, but the military itself for extremely poor judgment at the least and malfeasance at the most.

Ricks goes into some detail lining out to chain of events, naming the patrons of the war and their motives, along the way, which led to the war. He also describes the planning, or mis-planning if you wish, of the war, but the majority of the book centers on the immediate aftermath of the invasion, from April of 2003 through 2004. Ricks lays out the argument that during this period, Phase IV of the war (the aftermath) was so bungled that we were within an eyelash of turning victory into defeat. He also maintains that this mishandling was so endemic and pervasive that the outcome is still in doubt.

Summary

Ricks postulates that the Iraqi war was contrived by neo-conservatives led by Paul Wolfowitz, justified by handpicked intelligence, much of which had been discounted. He goes on to say the military planning was altered time and again by the overbearing Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfield, who at one time proposed an invasion force of ten thousand men.

Then after the successful invasion, despite a flawed plan, which totally by passed the ultimate enemy and the backbone of the future insurgency — the Fedayeen, our troops throughout the country stood by as witnesses to the greatest act of thievery in the history of the world, as looters stole Iraq. This was the result of having too few boots on the ground, a fact that haunts us (the military) to this day. A result of the widespread looting of Iraq, besides requiring billions to replace, was that it set a tone for lawlessness in Iraq. It also made our troops appear indecisive, which they were.

Ultimately, the biggest sin the military committed was a sin of omission. Purposely or not, they refused to recognize the character of the war they were in (with Rumsfield’s help) as an insurgency and act accordingly. The lessons of the insurgency we fought in Viet Nam seem to have been lost as a bad dream and the military insisted on fighting a brutal conventional war. This was a major error in strategy.

Last but not least, the tactics used by our military lost the backing and respect of the Iraqi people and fueled the fire of the insurgency, which the generals refused to fight as such.

Conclusion

As a newspaper reporter, Ricks’ writing takes on a news reporting style of writing — very compelling, very smooth and very easy to read. While the writer does perform an occasional analysis, the book seems to center around hundreds of quotation bites and the author’s attendant explanations and elaborations.

Of course, this means that there are many opinions mixed in with the reported facts and history. Still, I give these opinions credence for two reasons — the high quantity of similar views within the book and the fact that these views mirror conventional wisdom and other publications.

Being an opponent of the war, this book was a vindication, of sorts, for the deductions I had arrived at. The Bush Administration took us to war with a marginal war plan and no plan whatsoever for reconstruction, disengagement or exit. I find it incongruous that the Administration is constantly saying the Democrats had no plan for Iraq, when they, themselves, had no plan.

By the way, according to this book, Jay Garner the one time reconstruction czar, who was unceremoniously dumped after two weeks, originally voiced the one plan the Administration keeps harping on — “we’ll stand down when they stand up,” in an unapproved speech: a speech for which he was chastised, but from which their big plan evolved. The plan of course was poorly implemented and has yet to bear fruit.

The true irony of the war was that the approach the Administration took toward the war. The parsimonious use of troops, telling the generals to expect redeployment in a matter of months and trying to fight the war on the cheap, actually had the opposite effect by adding to the longevity of the war and running the cost into the hundreds of billions.

I give this book a five star rating.

November 18, 2007. Tags: , , , , , , , , , . attack, Baghdad, Cheney, George W. Bush, Iraq, Islam, liberators, lies, politics, President Bush, Rumsfeld, Saudi Arabia, Shiite, slam dunk, Sunni, Syria, Terrorism. Leave a comment.

A Review of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (And the Crusades)

The Bottom Line
Most followers of Islam maintain their faith is a religion of peace and Allah (God) is merciful. Yet, the jihadists are even more vocal about their aggressive, destructive ways being directly from the Qur’an, therefore Allah (God).

Who’s right? They both are. Remember Muslim hordes set out in the seventh and eighth century to conquer the world and convert all infidels (non believers) to Islam. The fact is, the Qur’an and other Islamic holy books are full of contradictions, so if you are looking for answers to questions you may have about Islam, you won’t find them here. But, if you want to know what kind of people we are fighting against and why, this book will tell you.

the_politically_incorrect_guide_to_islam_and_the_crusades_-resized200.jpg

In this timely, hot button book, Robert Spencer examines the motivation and goals of, not necessarily, just the terrorists alone but fellow extremists and, by association, all Muslims in general.

He claims there is a substantial quantity of misinformation being disseminated about Islam, some officially and some by apologists. Islam, which, translates into surrender, appears to be aptly named since there was plenty of surrendering going on among Islam’s perceived enemies in the first hundred and fifty years of the religion. That’s when aggressive, ruthless armies of the Prophet Muhammad, poured out of Arabia, spreading the nascent religion across a swath of Africa and Asia from the Atlantic Ocean to India. Later Indonesia and parts of India, Thailand, China, Malaysia and the Philippines were added. The victims of this onslaught were given three options: surrender and convert to Islam, surrender and become a dhimmi (a second-class citizen subject to onerous taxation) or DEATH.

This area is home to some one point two billion Muslims, which Spencer claims are all potential enemies of the rest of the inhabitants of the globe. The reasoning is that the seeds of confrontation are intertwined within the fabric of Islam, through the Muslim holy book and he cites various passages from the Qur’an to substantiate his theory. At the head of these passages is Jihad, which means struggle. The struggle, according to Spencer is to struggle against the infidels (non-believers) to achieve a position of preeminence where Islam reigns supreme.

We all know that this is what bin Laden wants but it’s been widely reported that this view is a perversion of Islam. According to Spencer, this is straight out of the Qur’an and the perversion is that this information is being withheld from the public, ostensibly to not engender additional angst with John Q. Public. Even mainstream Muslim’s seem to have trouble coming to grips that their holy book is the basis of so much terrorism and could be so inconsistent.

Other passages that should be of concern to Westerners are the traditions of deceit and duplicity. Muslims should not befriend infidels and it’s expected that they should lie to them (but not Muslims). If they do befriend an infidel, it should only be to gain an advantage and any agreements with infidels are again, to gain an advantage and if no longer needed, should be discarded. No wonder Israel cannot get a peace agreement with the Palestinians.

Spencer also takes a cursory look at the Crusades. He states that, although they appear to have been a waste of time and manpower, they kept the Muslims at bay for almost two hundred years. Spencer believes this gave the Europeans just enough time to build their strength and technology to hold their own when the Islamic hordes, once again set their sights there.

Even so, there are large pockets of Muslims left over from Jihadists incursions in Bosnia, Kosovo, Albania and Spain. It is Spencer’s contention that without the Crusades we might all be on our knees five times a day facing Mecca. However, that still might happen since an estimated fifteen million Muslim immigrants, with more daily, have inundated Europe. As we’ve all seen on the news recently with bombings in London and Madrid and riots in France, these immigrants can be problematic, but they also could become a fifth column.

Conclusion

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) is the kind of book that can get under your skin if you let it. I’m sure it’s accurate and factual and in comparison to other similar books I’ve read, specifically, about the plight of Muslim women, it backed what I had previously read. However, it seems to me, to be written with a conservative slant. It seems to highlight the worst of Islam, giving only perfunctory concessions to other views. The fact that Regnery Publishing, a well-known right wing publisher, published the book reinforces that feeling.

As for the author, Robert Spencer, he did a good job of presenting his case in a fluid, easily understandable and readable style. I personally believe what he wrote but many would feel it wasn’t balanced. He is obviously well versed on the subject of the book, providing the chapter/verse in the Qur’an, wherever he paraphrases a passage. He has a thorough knowledge of the subject and puts his views forward in a believable method. In addition, he provides many interesting sidebars where there are comparisons of the teachings of Muhammad and Jesus, quotes from historic figures, Books You’re Not Supposed to Read and Just Like Today segments.

Spencer makes several good points, such as saying our war on terror is incorrectly named, terror being a tactic. He says the enemy is the Jihadists and the war should be so named. I also got a kick out of Spencer’s term for outrageous, seventy-two virgins in heaven Muslim belief. He called it bordello paradise.

Frankly, if you are looking for some good news about the Muslims, this book is not for you, unless you consider learning more about their downside, good news. The bottom line, according to Spencer, is their can be no long-term peaceful co-existence with the Muslim society unless they modify the aggressive tenants of the Qur’an. Don’t hold your breath.

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) is 231 pages and contains eighteen chapters. They are titled:

1] Muhammad: Prophet of War
2] The Qur’an: The Book of War
3] Islam: Religion of War
4] Islam: Religion of Intolerance
5] Islam Oppresses Women
6] Islamic Law: Lie, Steal, Kill
7] How Allah Killed Science
8] The Lure of Islamic Paradise
9] Islam – Spread by the Sword? You Bet.
10] Why the Crusades were called
11] The Crusades: Myth and Reality
12] What the Crusades Accomplished – And What They Didn’t
13] What if the Crusades Had Never Happened?
14] Islam and Christianity: Equivalent Traditions?
15] The Jihad Continues
16] “Islamophobia” and Today’s Ideological Jihad
17] Criticizing Islam May Be Hazardous to Your Health
18] The Crusade We Must Fight Today

November 3, 2007. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Atrocity, attack, Baghdad, Cheney, George W. Bush, Iran, Iraq, Islam, President Bush, Saudi Arabia, Sharia, Shiite, Sunni, Syria, Terrorism, women. 6 comments.

The Bush Legacy continues – Bush’s Five Biggest Lies

the-five-biggest-lies.jpg
The Five Biggest Lies was not the first book I’ve read on George W. Bush and or his misadventure and it probably won’t be the last. Obviously, from the title, one can deduct that this is not a book that praises the forty-third president. The book is well written and planned and is generally about what the title describes – the five major fallacies that were given as the rationale for the unprovoked aggression of Iraq. It is basically set forth in an outline style, starting with an introduction, then a chapter on the reasoning and methodology behind the deception. The deceptions themselves follow, with a chapter allocated to each lie, followed by the conclusion.

The chapters outlining the five lies are titled by the lies:
1. Al Qaeda’s ties to Iraq.
2. Iraq’s Chemical and Biological Weapons
3. Iraq’s Nuclear Weapons
4. The War Will Be a ‘Cakewalk’
5. Iraq as a Democratic Model
6. Conclusion

Al Qaeda’s ties to Iraq

The authors methodically expose this deceit pointing to the fact that all of the prewar suppositions regarding an alleged tie between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein had previously been discredited. Yet, as in the pattern of other falsehoods, these lies mysteriously found their way back into the conversations and speeches of administration officials.

Iraq’s Chemical and Biological Weapons

Another stretch by the administration that had been debunked previously, even as the administration members continued to talk about Chemical and Biological WMD. They shamelessly continued to use this discounted intelligence as a pretext for invasion. Even though the United States and the UN had Hussein in a box, in control of only a third of his country and was unable to reconstitute chemical and biological programs; the administration pointed to this phantom program as a grave world threat.

Iraq’s Nuclear Weapons

This may have been the largest and most damaging of the fabrications. Everything that the administration put forward to justify their mushroom cloud scenario had already been discredited numerous times and in many ways, yet the people in Rumsfeld’s personal intelligence gatherers, whose only purpose was to dig up intelligence that would support the administration position, wouldn’t let it die. This despite the fact that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said there was no evidence of any kind of WMD in Iraq and weapon inspectors had come up empty. Vice President Cheney in no uncertain terms said they were “Flat wrong.” Well, the head of IAEA ended up with a Nobel Peace Prize and we ended up with a quagmire.

The War Will be a ‘Cakewalk’

Here again the administration’s leading Hawk, VP Cheney was head cheerleader for invasion by going on TV and saying the war would be a “cakewalk.” Others treated the invasion in a cavalier manner as well. The administration planned on reducing troop levels to 30,000 troops within three months.

The authors point out that this may be the only inadvertent lie, with administration officials truly believing their own hyperbole in this case.

Iraq as a Democratic Model

This is, of course, the back up rationale for the invasion of Iraq, but it was the primary policy on a position of expansion and policing, which authors put forth in the conclusion.
The authors don’t disagree with the idea of a model democracy in the Middle East but it is generally conceived that if such an event were to occur it would have to be nurtured, not imposed from the end of a gun.

Conclusion

The authors postulate that the invasion of Iraq was the first salvo in a new grandiose, radical foreign policy of deterrence by aggression. In doing this the administration made numerous assumptions, all of which turned out to be fallacious. Instead the results of the invasion had the opposite effect, bogging us down in Iraq, helpless to confront other developing mischief in the globe, ie. Iran and North Korea.

My Thoughts

This book only deals with the lead up to the war and the very beginnings, having being published in October, 2003, yet the authors seem quite prescient, having correctly predicting the present situation in Iraq.

Like the other similar books I have devoured, it is meant to be informative and factual. It is probably directed at the average Bush supporter who seem to shun being confused with facts and therefore would not be caught within a mile of such ‘dreck.’

Therefore this book and others like it serve as kindling, inflaming the passions of those of us that believe Dubya is, at best, a study in mediocrity. It reinforces our incredulity that this man was re-elected. I don’t know about others, but it makes be mad at the voters that voted, with whatever stupid reason in mind, for Bush. I can truthfully say, not a day goes by that I haven’t marveled at the fact that this man is our President.

October 20, 2007. Tags: , , , , , , , . attack, Baghdad, Books, Cheney, George W. Bush, President, President Bush, review, Rumsfeld, slam dunk, Terrorism, Vice Presidency, Watergate. 3 comments.

Is it Okay to say Viet Nam Yet?

Iraq
The war in Iraq is now the longest declared war in the last century, having surpassed WW1, WW 2 and Korea.

I remember in the early days of the Iraq incursion how a progression of administration sycophants, military analysts and elected officials hit the air waves, denying any similarities to our only armed humiliation – Viet Nam. I’d like to say that I was prescient and suspected better, but no, I was right there foolishly nodding my head and saying darned right, Iraq’s totally different, they don’t have a jungle. They have a desert and it’s hard to hide in a desert. Instaed they hide in cities.

US Soldier

Unfortunately, I and a strong majority of the country were wrong. It’s of little consolation that I started changing my view over two years ago. It is apparrent that what we have now is worse than Viet Nam. The Viet Cong at least had the support of North Viet Nam regulars and were backed and supplied by China and Russia.

In Iraq, a small disassociated ragtag group of insurgents are holding the most powerful military in the world to a stalemate and time appears to be on their side. Do they have aircraft carriers and fighter planes, bombers, helicopters, satellite reconnaissance and tanks? They don’t have a Stealth bomber or fighter but they have stealth. They are fighting us to a standstill with small weapons (AK47s), RPG’s (rocket propelled grenades), IED’s (improvised explosive devices), suicide bombers and of course fear and terror. Much of the munitions which have been turned against us, were scavenged from Iraqi ammunition dumps that were left unsecurred
by our brilliant administration.

For those who still insist that Bush’s Iraqi adventure is nothing like Viet Nam, I have drawn up a list of similarities:

1] It’s a guerrilla war
2] The enemy looks just like the civilians
3] We’re trying to beef up an unpopular government. (actually, an unfulfilled government)
4] We are trying, with poor results, to train an indigenous army.
5] The insurgents are getting help from outside sources.
6] It is a war with a dubious purpose.
7] There appears to be no exit strategy.
8] The war has left us unpopular, worldwide.

The military commanders must feel frustrated. The stated reasons for the war did not pan out, no WMD, no ties to 9/11, no free democratic Irag as an example and yet we dare not leave, abandoning the Iraqis to the chaos which would ensue such a move. How impotent they must feel, since they have all this technology and firepower which can only be used sparingly. I remember a quote by whom I ‘m not sure, which is most appropriate, it goes something like this, “Those who fail to heed the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.”

Dead Soldiers

Iraq may not truly be another Viet Nam, it’s just a ‘quagmire.

September 26, 2007. Baghdad, cakewalk, Cheney, Civil War, George W. Bush, Iraq, liberators, politics, President, President Bush, Rumsfeld, Saudi Arabia, Shiite, Sunni, Syria, Terrorism, Vice Persideny. 2 comments.

The Incredible Shrinking Presidency of George W. Bush

bush_undercover_small.jpg

We seem to be witnessing the incredible shrinking presidency of George W. Bush. By we, I mean the entire country. I always thought his hubris and arrogance would get him in trouble but it seems to be his policies instead.

As a person, he still seems to be popular, but his poll numbers are sinking like a guy with a cement overcoat. Why? Because he keeps on pushing for or against things the public doesn’t agree with. Bush wanted to restructure Social Security. In the polls only thirty-three percent were in his corner, even after his big four month push. Then he cast the only veto to kill a bill that would expand federal funding for stem cell research. Almost everybody has a family member or knows somebody that this research could help. Over sixty percent are in favor of expanding stem cell research and cannot understand why he would rather see surplus embryos flushed down a toilet than used to help living breathing people.

Remember the Terry Schaivo fiasco? Only eighty percent thought the President and Congress were out of line for trying to interfere in that family matter. Then there’s Irag, as big a boondoggle as there ever was. As the war in Iraq drags on with no resolution in sight, it’s popularity (if one can say a war can be popular) has hit new lows, with only thirty percent now saying the war is worth the price we’re paying. For the first time ever, less than forty percent believe it is making us safer here at home. And this with a majority of the population unaware of the Downing Street Memo and other controversial matters that have come to light. Bush’s handling of the economy and the direction he’s taking the country are also drawing new lows with forty-one and thirty percent respectively.

It seems that Bush is pleasing no one, except the hyper rich and the ultra right Christian loonies, as he appeases the dark side of his base, while his other constituents scratch their collective heads and wonder when the President is going to stop his slide into irrelevancy and do or propose something they can agree with.

They say that, as the temperature descends, matter shrinks a certain percentage until it hits what is termed Absolute Zero. (which if I remember right is 457 degree below zero) Theoretically at that temperature matter ceases to exist. Do you think its possible that, if Bush’s poll numbers hit zero, his incredible shrinking Presidency will disappear?

September 13, 2007. Baghdad, Cheney, dishonest, ethics, George W. Bush, Iraq, politics, President, President Bush, Rumsfeld, social security, stem cell. Leave a comment.

Next Page »