Stay the Course Means Stay

Posted March 26, 2008 | 12:39 AM (EST)



stumble digg reddit del.ico.us news trust

2008-03-26-PeaceNotAnother100Yearssmall.JPG

News flash from the New York Times:

"Mr. Bush announced no final decision on future troop levels after the video briefing by the commander, Gen. David H. Petraeus, and the diplomat, Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker. The briefing took place on the day when the 4,000th American military death of the war was reported and just after the invasion's fifth anniversary."


My friend wrote this smart alecky comment:

This year we have heard from the President and the new presumptive leader of the Republican Party, John McCain, that we need to stay the course in Iraq. The surge is working (except for the hundreds of thousands of people who have been killed recently) and we need to continue to stay for as long as needed, perhaps 100 (one hundred) years. Then I read that the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, plans to leave Iraq as early as January and that General Petraeus, one of our greatest generals (according to Mr. McCain), is expected to rotate out of Iraq before January. Guess Bush and Cheney will exit about then too. Wait a minute. Why don't our leaders stay if our troops can't leave? Doesn't "stay the course" actually include the word "stay"? Nice to know at least Ambassador Crocker, General Petraeus and Bush and Cheney all have an exit strategy for Iraq!


As for the rest of us? As you can see, I'm staying at the sewing machine, making new banners for our peace vigils.

2008-03-26-PeaceWhoDied.JPG


 
 

Comments
3
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:

I think that part of the visceral hatred of Hillary comes from the fact that Bill showed the neocons the door when they came peddling the PNAC to him.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:19 AM on 03/26/2008

I watched part two of "Bush's War" on PBS last night, and I was intrigued by what on the surface seemed to be a mirthless comedy of errors. It seemed that no matter what lies beneath that surface, a lack of thorough planning and a large dose of ego-centric stupidity has driven the war to its current state--the old silent film KEYSTONE COPS come to mind.

But to me the fact that PNAC documents clearly state the intent of maintaining a presence in the Middle East is still too coincidental to be the result of unintended bungling; Cheney's efforts to undermine the State Dept. and generals in the field seems to have been equal parts agenda-driven sophistry and ego-centric territorial pissing. Rumsfeld seemed to be genuinely lost and not on the same page as Cheney; he seemed to be foundering once he realized that the US military could not extract itself and claim victory. By the time Rice convinced Bush to fire of Rumsfeld, he seemed at a loss on how to proceed; perhaps he was eager to disown the quagmire he helped create.

My gut feeling is that pencil-pushing ideologues like Richard Pearl and Douglas Feith foisted their PNAC goals and policies on the US populace and military through an executive group so ego-driven and incompetent that the disaster we have now in Iraq is an unintentional transmogrified fulfillment of PNAC doctrine.

As the saying goes, BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR....

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:34 AM on 03/26/2008

Honk honk!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:07 AM on 03/26/2008
Comments are closed for this entry

You must be logged in to reply to this comment. Log in

 
 

Bloggers Index›
Read All Posts by
Coleen Rowley›
 

 Site  Web ask.com