Richard Engels, My Five Years in Iraq
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
"As much as I hate to say it, I know beyond a doubt that the next weeks are going to be nasty. He’s leading, and there are people who simply cannot stomach the idea of his beautiful family living in the White House. There will be smears, all sorts of slander and lies, the likes of which you’ve probably rarely seen. So y’all, we got to pray for this man. And please . . . make sure you VOTE!" (Miryam Ehrlich Williamson)
Pundit of the Month
The (Evolving!) Rules
This is an experiment. Contributors are invited to post brief current items of their own interest. Items will be edited to ensure brevity, taste, interest, etc. Read More.
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(110)
-
▼
July
(17)
- No title
- Kindred Spirits
- Anti-Choice is Murder
- Dated, but on point...
- McDumb As Bush
- Apt Truthiness...
- God Wants Me To Be Vice President
- Predict John McCain’s Veep Selection!
- McCain is not Bush III!
- Drown in Hell: Bush Rescinds Father's Offshore Oi...
- While We Surge in Iraq, Afghanistan Is Going down ...
- "Too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice their lo...
- Bush's Missile Shield Is Not Needed in Europe
- What's the Plan?
- The Swiftspeech Award
- Independance Day Greetings From....
- Bush Had to Invade Iraq...
-
▼
July
(17)
4 comments:
I think most Republicans rather have Lieberman at their convention than Bush. Some, like very Republican Representative Dana Rohrabacher of California, simply wish Mr. Bush would keep out of the campaign, though few would say so openly:
"I don't think there are a lot of people who want to see him at the convention. He should stay home from the Republican convention, and everybody would be better off."
why is he not being impeached?
President Bush is vowing to send more troops to Afghanistan, much as he did in April. Perhaps he's noticed that taking his eye off the ball in Afghanistan has resulted in an increase in combat deaths -- greater than recent weeks in Iraq. It has also allowed the Taliban, al-Qaida and opium cartels to regain strong footing there. And Osama bin Laden continues to release more videos than the average MTV pop star.
But hey, we're still winning. The Associated Press reports that Bush sees it this way: "One reason why there have been more deaths is because our troops are taking the fight to a tough enemy, an enemy who doesn't like our presence there," etc. Here's how we got here: We (wrongly) invade Iraq without an exit strategy. So feeble was the planning that the Bush administration figured we'd be done within weeks. Four years and some change into the Iraq war (with Afghanistan on the back burner), it dawns on Bush that things aren't going well. Hence the "troop surge," which resulted in troop depletion and in sending felons to fight along with stop-lossed soldiers. So where will Bush find the troops for a surge in Afghanistan? Not his problem.
He only said the troops will be sent "by 2009" -- meaning he might not even be in office, leaving the next president the task of delivering on the promises he made. And that, dear readers, is planning.
Lieberman? Rohrabacher? Rather than Bush? Nice. I'm with Yellowdog granny. Impeach.
Sending more troops, IP? I'm not surprised. However, the comment that we'll send troops in 2009 is unnerving.
Post a Comment