Thursday, July 12, 2007
Lies, Damn Lies, and George W. Bush
Except for the fact that they AREN’T the same. The group which orchestrated 9/11 is al Qaida, the one headed by Osama bin Laden. One of the groups which is part of a multi-lateral civil war in Iraq is called al Qaida in Iraq, a homegrown terrorist group with dubious ties to al Qaida proper which only rebranded itself al Qaida after the U.S. invasion of Iraq. And of course the majority of the people who are bombing innocent people in Iraq are Sunni and Shiite militias, not to mention elements of the Iraqi army who are really members of those militias.“The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq were the ones who attacked us in America on September 11,” [President Bush] said. “That’s why what happens in Iraq matters to security here at home.”
In other words, this is what you would call… what is it now? Oh yes, a lie. The same kind of lie this administration trotted out to make us believe that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11 so that they could launch an immoral preemptive war. The same kind of lie which was used to convince us that Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction were more menacing than they actually were (which, given that they were non-existent, weren’t very menacing at all).
And you wonder why he has a twenty-six percent approval rating?
July 30th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
It isn’t a lie because we do have Al Quida inIraq. It isn’t a “dubious connection” but a legitimate one. Also, there is no civil war in Iraq going on. We have an insurgency going on from an extreme minority. There is a difference. Also, the fact they found bomb shells dated 2001 in 2003 in violation of the UN resolutions of 1992 shows there are no lies going on. The fact remains is that everyone I know, even those against Bush, agree that Saddam out of power was a good thing. The fact remains from that observation that the only way for Saddam to get out of power was by force. However, I do agree with you more diplomacy should have been done. However, I totally believe any more negotiation with that tyrannt after decades of negotiation would have been to no avail.
July 30th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
You mention in your final sentence indirectly a poll. For a leader to be successful he mustn’t base that leadership on polls. I believe it is the impatience of the American public not the leadership of Bush that is to blame. Bush even mentioned that it would take years and a resolution on the part of America to stand by the people of Iraq and even with that, at the time, America stood by Bush. Bush was straight forward all along. He even mentioned other things besides WMD to go after the Saddam regime on. The American public forgets that. It seems the American public with its views have “selective memory”.