The "Great Decider" decided that the Saudis who were backed by the Taliban and did the 9/11 damage were really Iraqis.Then he decided that the people who told him there was no danger from Iraq from WMDs were lying to him. Now he has decided that we need more troops in Iraq so that we can win this war, and we cannot allow the enemy to declare a victory. He sold this nonsense to Joseph Lieberman, who has bought into the concept of winning the war.
Neither one has been able to convince me what winning the war means. Does it mean having an Iraqi government that we like and the Iraqi people hate, or having an Iraqi government that hates us and the Iraqi people like? The other question is who is our enemy? Is it Al Qaeda or the Iraqi Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds?
They also claim that retreat is not an option. Every military book I read considers it a viable option. In any case we will have to leave Iraq sometime. To some, even after ten years, it will look like a retreat. We have left soldiers there who will never come home.
To be a "Great Decider" one does not necessarily have to make great decisions. I would settle for good decisions.
The record speaks for itself.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I agree with the cranky old liberal on all points. I'm quite amazed, however, that there still are souls who defend and agree with the administration. They seem normal, but they confound me.
Post a Comment