< .comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Massachusetts Liberal

Observations on politics, the media and life in Massachusetts and beyond from the left side of the road.

Tuesday, September 12, 2006

Duck and cover

It was vintage Bush -- trying to turn solemn moments into partisan advantage.

In his full court press to defend the indefensible, W repeated an oldie-but-goodie fear mongering line while pointing to the gaping flaw in his whole misguided Iraqi adventure. Let's go the phrase parser.
"Whatever mistakes have been made in Iraq," Bush said last night in a prime-time address from the Oval Office, "the worst mistake would be to think that if we pulled out, the terrorists would leave us alone. They will not leave us alone. They will follow us. The safety of America depends on the outcome of the battle in the streets of Baghdad."
The "New" George Bush is trying to admit mistakes, albeit grudgingly. But never one to really admit to anything, he ducks responsibility and immediately turns to his straw man argument that pulling out of Iraq is the wrong way to go.

But no, we do not believe that we will be left alone by extremists and the battle against terrorism is correct. It's the tactics which are wrong.

To cover that problem, he then he goes back to the tired fear-raising argument that we will fight them in our streets. And then he utters the ultimate hypocritical flaw in his argument: "The safety of America depends on the outcome of the battle in the streets of Baghdad."

If that is truly the case, why has the United States not committed greater resources to the fight in the first place? At least one prominent military leader lost his job while making that argument and Donald Rumsfeld remains in place after rejecting that argument.

If he truly believes in his cause he would take the hard road and increase troop levels to what is needed to do the job (and which could have prevented the civil war in the first place). No, our current policy is not cut and run. It's more like duck and cover. And equally effective as its namesake.

The Leader of the Free World keeps trying though.
"I am often asked why we are in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks," Bush said. "The answer is that the regime of Saddam Hussein was a clear threat," the president said, tapping his desk for emphasis. "The world is safer because Saddam Hussein is no longer in power."
Really? Or if you just believe in coincidence, how does this strike you? Clear threat to whom and with what weapons of mass destruction?

But as administration officials would be the first to point out, neither of these most recent incidents happened on our streets.

Sorry W, but the world is a far less safe place because fundamentalist Christian leaders challenged fundamentalist Islamic extremists in new battlegrounds, rather than fighting real threats on real battlegrounds.


Blogger jan the fed up psychotherapist said...

Shameless fu**. See Olbermanns wonderful, brave response last night. Brought me to tears. Spin 911. God is there no end to their irreverance? If I had a family member who died in 911 I would puke. Only Bush and his criminal cronies could turn 911 into a positive spin for a totally unrelated war. Will America ever wake up? Here is the strategy: make up any sh*t that has nothing at all to do with what you are talking about, throw in some garbage about freedom or liberty (again with no real reference about real freedom or liberty) and count on Americans not really focusing, because they are tooo lazy to actually try to hear what you aren't saying...pure Karl Marx, I mean Rove.

September 12, 2006 7:02 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Whilst America should never have gone in to Iraq, which has made the world a more dangerous place, you should have pulled out as soon as you realised your mistake.
I'm afriad you can't pull out now for years, if ever, because if and when you do Iran will simply invade and what a whole can of worm that will open.

September 12, 2006 7:03 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home