This suggests we haven't already failed.
Yep, it's true--in case you haven't noticed, we've lost in Iraq. The idea was to remove a threat in the form of Iraq. Instead, we've created a much bigger threat to middle east stability (as oxymoronic as that sounds) and inspired AQ and other terrorists to take up the fight against America and American interests. On top of that, the state of Iraq seems solidly worse than it was under Saddam's rule. At least, that's what the United Nations and the LA Times are saying. Here is a cutting from [http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iraq26apr26,0,5020129.story?coll=la-home-headlines|an April 25, 2007 article] at LATimes.com that gives us the details:
Academics are being assassinated, prisoners are being tortured, women are being murdered by their own families in so-called "honor killings," and civilians continue to be cut down by rampant violence, the United Nations said today in a report painting a grim picture of life in Iraq.Sounds yummy.The report, which covers from Jan. 1, 2007 through March 31, was most notable for what it did not include: the number of civilian deaths.
That's because the Iraqi government refused to release those numbers, the U.N. spokesman, Said Arikat, said as he presented the organization's 10th such summary of the human rights situation in Iraq.
However, numbers obtained from various ministries by the Times indicated that already this year, 5,509 civilians had died violently in Baghdad province alone, which includes the capital.
In its last report before this one, issued in January, the U.N. said that 34,452 civilians had died in violence last year, a figure it based on information from government ministries, hospitals and medical officials. But the Iraqi government said the U.N. estimate was highly exaggerated, and it would not give information for the newest report.
If you like the taste of tens of thousands of dead people.
So, when the House and Senate decide to give funding but set a withdrawal date for the troops, Bush and Cheney both speak out against it. Bush says that the troops need funds fast and that'll be the fault of Congress when he stamps a big "VETO" on their bill. Bush goes on to say that if we pull out now, terrorists would surely come to American shores. Letting this bill pass would mean more Americans dead.
Cheney echoed this opinion also mentioning how this bill doesn't support the troops.
It's amazing that Pelosi is so spineless. How do you not hit these absurd soft balls out of the park?
To Bush, I would say: You've created terrorists where there were none. That said, there still are much bigger threats to America than terrorists. You caused this mess and you should pay for it with your resignation or impeachment. Talk about the betrayal of the public trust!
To Cheney, I would say: Support the troops? What do you call putting troops in an unjust, unneeded war? If you supported the troops you'd have had SOLID evidence that Iraq had WMD before invading--instead, we waged a war that inspired tens of thousands to become terrorists and in the process lost more Americans in Iraq than were lost on 911. Then, when our troops do come home, they get horrible care at Walter Reed.
This is all big brother doublespeak. The White House accuses others of the very thing they themselves are doing.
Why isn't ANYone trying to call them on it?
So, yes, in the end, we've failed in Iraq whether we stay or go. It's the Bush Administration's fault.
Sadly, many of us saw this coming and didn't just speak out, we screamed out at protests around the world. Bush didn't listen. No one did, really.
And now Iraq is a failure, today, tomorrow, next week, next month and in the history books.
Orignal From: PULLING OUT OF IRAQ MEANS FAILURE? WHO CARES?
No comments:
Post a Comment