As reported yesterday, the US President stated on television that Iraq had nothing to do with 911. It is also clear that there were never any weapons of mass destruction, and Saddam has been captured and is on trial.
And yet, despite all of this, Bush is still insisting that the US continue occupying Iraq, as reported yesterday:
“Any sign that says we’re going to leave before the job is done simply emboldens terrorists,” he said at a press conference. “We’re not leaving, so long as I’m the president. That would be a huge mistake.” (Source: Yahoo News: Bush Faces Revolt on Iraq)
What “terrorists”? Iraq had nothing to do with 911. Bush is recorded on tape as saying so himself. And if we compare events in the US with events in Iraq - who is terrorizing who? Who are the real terrorists here? Who are the aggressors? Who is the one who has attacked and occupied another country?
So, Bush wants to “stay the course” in Iraq, even though it is clear that Iraq was, and is continuing to be, attacked without any reason. Or rather, without any reason that normal people would consider a “good reason” - i.e. self-defense. Iraq had nothing to do with 911. Iraq was not going to attack the US with weapons of mass destruction. Iraq was not a threat. And yet, the US attacked and occupied Iraq. Why?
Greed. A hunger for oil and money and control. And a twisted logic that states that preemptive attacks are legitimate against those who are not “with you” - i.e. those who are not good little girls and boys and do what the US tells them to do. As a result of this, Iraq has been decimated and thousands have died, and are still dying at the time of this writing.
It is becoming so obvious now that even some of Bush’s fellow republicans are beginning to change their tune regarding Iraq.
But more than a few politicians and commentators once firmly in Bush’s camp have joined the doubters on the war, which has cost hundreds of billions of dollars and the lives of more than 2,600 US troops.
Republican Representative Walter Jones (news, bio, voting record), who once helped rename French fries “freedom fries” in anger at Paris’s opposition to the conflict, reversed course in June 2005 and urged Bush to set a withdrawal timetable.
Michael Fitzpatrick, another Republican representative who backed the March 2003 invasion, has reportedly branded both his Democratic rival — a decorated Iraq war veteran who supports a US redeployment — and Bush as “extreme.”
“Congressman Fitzpatrick says no to both extremes: No to
President Bush’s ’stay-the-course’ strategy, … and no to Patrick Murphy’s ‘cut-and-run’ approach,” said a Fitzpatrick campaign flier described in the Washington Times.
Moderate Republican Christopher Shays, who backed the use of force to oust
Saddam Hussein, told the Washington Post last week that he would propose a time frame for a US withdrawal from Iraq. […]
(Source: Yahoo News: Bush Faces Revolt on Iraq)
Will any of this sway the US President, even if the opposition grows? It is doubtful. As he said himself: “We’re not leaving, so long as I’m the president.”
Well, with any luck, that won’t be for very much longer - and hopefully, it will be before too many more people are slaughtered on the altar of greed and power.
911
arab
News
Politics
News and politics
Current Affairs
Middle East
Foreign Policy
Personal
Journal
