The President of the United States made a speech last night. I was impressed again by his consistent ability to speak without addressing the issues of the subject. He said that it is "wrong to set artificial deadlines". I agree. But did that answer any question about setting actual, Real deadlines for withdrawal? Not for me. He said we would be there until "We Win." That made me wonder what he was celebrating on the deck of the carrier when he said the war was over, and we had ........., (WON?) But he didn't say what we were looking to win. Even Ted Kennedy asked for specific guidelines to determine our progress in objective terms, and certain benchmarks for marking the arbitrary "progress" in this Occupation. Without specific points of reference, we are blindly moving more men into a continually dangerous position just to "proudly serve." But President Bush used his evasive speech patterns to avoid any specific references, and continued as if his concepts were actual answers. Either he truly doesn't know what he is doing (a distinct possibility), or he is trying to hide a specific, and apparently unpopular agenda. Perhaps he thinks that the general public would not aquiese to an agenda that specified the goal of 9 (or 90) permanent Military Bases in Iraq. Perhaps his agenda of seeking world domination and his goal to "spread Democracy around the world" might not sit well with any other country but his own private world.
But his own private world has its own sky, and is somewhat selfish and warped from reality here. Please ask him to go back to Texas. Maybe he'll get lost in killing his prisoners there.
3 comments:
I didn't watch the speech - I just don't have the patience any more. He just makes me want to scream. Check out the article by David Molberg in Alternet today - I think it goes a long way to expain why he keeps getting voted onto office.....
Reason # 2, why U. S. went-http://news.ft.com/cms/s/e0cdc282-ee47-11d9-98e5-00000e2511c8,dwp_uuid=bf499000-f5eb-11d8-b814-00000e2511c8.html
Rummy:
"But asked if the security situation had improved, he admitted: "Statistically, no." "But clearly it has been getting better as we've gone along," he added. As a statistician, if his claim that it has been getting better as we've gone along is true, then by definition the security situation would have improved. At least Rummy contradicts himself with concision.ED MARTIN - When Rumsfeld says that a lot of bad things that could have happened have not happened, he's referring to the fact that in spite of his having attacked a defenseless country, killed 100,000 innocent people, 1700 US soldiers and wounded 12,000 more, all for no reason, he was never at risk of being killed or wounded and he still has his job.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4090626.stm
Post a Comment