It has been more than five and a half years since our once great nation launched a horrid war for horrid reasons in Iraq. Governor Palin during her debate with Senator Biden spoke of our leaving Iraq as being like waving the white flag of surrender. She also used the "surge" word many times as if it was somehow the "grand strategy" of ours to "win" in Iraq which it apparently isn't. Our "grand strategy" should be to leave Iraq ASAP!
As he campaigns, I continue to hear John McCain use the "surge" word to describe our (or his) winning strategy in Iraq and my smoldering hair bursts into flame. The "surge" took place about a year and a half ago. If you had a headache and you took a couple of aspirin a year and a half ago and you were no better I would think that you might consider a different remedy.
What really pisses me off about his "surge" bravado is that in the last month, 25 American kids died and 40 American kids have been wounded in Iraq. Why did these kids die? Why were these kids wounded? If the surge was "designed" to reduce our casualties or pacify parts of Iraq OK, but what are we doing in Iraq now?
I know that both broadcast and cable news people have much more important things to report on than the war, but why is it not a worthy item to bring up in every network news cycle every day? Do these guys who run broadcast operations continue to intentionally ignore their responsibility to operate in the public interest, convenience, and necessity?
The "surge" should not just be a political campaign slogan. Its context should be that whatever happened "then" should have allowed us to withdraw our one hundred and fifty thousand or so soldiers, and it hasn't. Was the "surge" designed to reduce our casualties so that our boys and girls could stay there indefinitely?
I can hear in my mind, Senator McCain's answer to the why are will still in Iraq question, but Senator why are we still there and when can we bring our kids home? Why is McCain not asked to explain his position on Iraq in every interview?
I would only hope that our vaunted electronic media could take a few minutes away from Palin, and mention what is going on in our wars and ask a question or two about these wars, even if Senator McCain gets upset.
As a 76 year old person, I think I am at least allowed to say that Senator McCain often comes across as a surly, grumpy old man. In my opinion McCain comes across as a grumpy old man because he is a grumpy old man!
I wonder what McCain or Palin would have said had they been asked how long it serves our interests to stay in Iraq? What would they say about our soldiers being "targets" for over five and a half years? What would they say now about the announcement of "mission accomplished" five years ago? What would they say as to or about the equity of sending the same men and women back into harms way over and over again? What would they say about re-instituting a draft to reduce the inequities of the same kids (some of whom are in their 40's and 50's) being in harms way more than once without any end in sight? What would they say if they were asked to define "winning" in this war?
March 19, 2003 will never be a date we celebrate in our country. It is the day that our President and Vice President, among others, started this mistaken war without a discernible end.
I know it matters what newspapers Palin reads, or all of the other questions asked of her during those "in depth" interviews, however but will someone ask her all of the questions that need to be asked about the wars we are in the past, present, and future. Perhaps she will "get back to us" with her reply.
By the way, wanna bet that we have seen the last of her interviews with print or television journalists such as Couric and Gibson. It is funny how these purveyors of "softball" questions have become the Republicans version of "gotcha" journalists.
I need to stop now and re-read the Constitution and the limits of vice presidential authority.