Interesting article in the news today after Presidents Bush’s State Of The Union Speech Last week, the President asked for both parties “On both sides of the aisle” to work with him to make Iraq successful. Shortly after the state of the union the Democratic rebuttal was if anything a rebuke of the Presidents stance on the War in Iraq. Now I have not been a fan of this President nor did I vote for him in either election, however I did support his decision to go into Afghanistan. Iraq on the other hand was a different story, when Colin Powell stood up before the United Nations in Feb. of 2003 regarding Iraq I was not overly impressed with his presentation, I have the utmost respect for Collin Powell and he is an eloquent speaker but the rational for war to me was pretty weak. Read the transcript here or here and decide  for yourself. That being said I have not beena proponent of the war in Iraq although Sadaam Huessien is a bad guy and needed to go. Since then though I feel that we owe the people of Iraq, the men and women in our armed forces and ourselves the American people the obligation to make this terrible mess somehow right. How will we do that is the question, no doubt the sectarian violence in Iraq is not likely to stop in the immediate future, I think a form of martial law is the best bet to give a semblance of calming waters and then training the Iraqi army as fast as possible and getting the hell out of there is the best answer. I think the presidents plan to send an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq to bolster troops in and around Bahgdad virtually creating a martial law situation. Then slowly but surely ridding Baghdad of insurgents could work. He also put a timeline on this phase looking towards November 2007 to see if we have made some progress. I believe this is a reasonable request, now the Democrats on the other hand are fightig him tooth and nail and it seems the presidents party is finally hanging him out to dry as you can see by Republican Arlen Specter said today (Story)

 “I would suggest respectfully to the president that he is not the sole decider,” Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record), R-Pa., said during a hearing on Congress’ war powers amid an increasingly harsh debate over

Iraq war policy. “The decider is a shared and joint responsibility,” Specter said.

The president looks like he is facing an uphill battle here now even highly respected Republican leaders are facing off against him.

One Response

  1. The ‘decider’ will end up making decisions that will badly impact us all globally simply because the other ‘deciders’ in Congress can’t seem to come to a consensus on what brand of toilet paper to put in the restroom. But beyond that, just as I never for one moment believed the original baloney for why we’re in Irag, neither do I for one moment believe that ‘the surge’ is intended to calm down Iraq… gettng rid of Hussein, al Queda and/or installing democracy was never the true goal(s). Read my caps: GETTING A LOCK ON THE OIL was and is the goal. There is a secondary goal: ISRAEL’S BODYGUARD FOREVER. The rest of the Middle Eastern countries know this, which is why Iran is boldly seeking the path of nuclear parity. Therefore, ‘the surge’ along with additional ships is really meant to continue the bluster to Iran: ‘you sure you want to mess with us, buddy?’ As there’s one true thing this administration has been telling Americans from the get-go, ‘we’ll be in Iraq a long time.’ Since Muslims hate Jews more intensely than they hate Americans who brought war, Bush’s secondary goal is the one they’re most wary of and the one that is causing extreme agitation in the Middle East. All that’s to say this: there is no exit strategy—as everyone has been asking about—because there is no intention of ever leaving that area of the world until every drop of oil has been sucked up. No matter that the earth is literally dying from the burning of the stuff….the ‘deciders’ of this system have set us on the course of total destruction.

Leave a Reply