|There he goes again
||[Jan. 11th, 2006|09:43 am]
"The American people know the difference between responsible and irresponsible debate when they see it. They know the difference between honest critics who question the way the war is being prosecuted and partisan critics who claim that we acted in Iraq because of oil, or because of Israel, or because we misled the American people. And they know the difference between a loyal opposition that points out what is wrong, and defeatists who refuse to see that anything is right."|
I guess it is defeatist to say that we can't "win" in Iraq. We will surely win, just as we did in Vietnam, and just as the French did in Algeria.
And criticizing Bush's conduct of the war in Iraq is bad for morale of the troops. A guy is stuck in a foreign desert, beset on all sides by natives who at best distrust and fear him, and at worst want to kill him, without the proper equipment to defend himself, following orders that put him in harm's way with no real hope of improving things. Hearing that people back in America want him home sooner rather than later probably is just the last straw.
Bush's statement above is a classic example of his doublespeak. Of course we're in Iraq because of Oil, and of course Israel is an important integral part of our Middle East policies. And rather than respond substantively to refute the criticisms of the Democrats, it's much easier to just call them unpatriotic.
And I don't believe we're just there to 'steal' their oil. We could have bought a shitload of oil for a half a trillion dollars, much cheaper than starting a war to 'steal' it. I mean that if Iraq wasn't the third largest reserve of Oil in the world, Saddam would never have become a factor in world politics, and besides, the Neocons say explicitly that turning the Middle East into friendly democracies will provide us with a reliable source of energy. I don't even disagree with that, I just think you can't kill people into democracy.
And I'm having a hard time seeing what is going right in Iraq. You can point to elections, and it's great that they're able to have elections, but the elections do nothing to improve the country's infrastructure, or stop the insurgency, or make it safer to walk the streets. We have failed to rebuild the country, we have failed to make Iraq safe for Iraqis, and we have failed to put the conditions in place to prevent the coming civil war and subsequent balkanization of the country. We haven't even been able to provide our soldiers with the equipment they need to be nominally 'safe.'
All we have done successfully is spend a lot of money and kill a lot of people. The only winners in Iraq are the people that supply the military with the weapons and material they need to fight the war. And those winners, coincidentally are the friends, golf partners, and business associates of the Bush family. And for fuck's sake, if _THAT_ is what this war is really about, why don't we NOT invade, say we did, and simply cut checks to those people? It's a much more efficient and cost effective transfer of wealth.
Worst. President. Ever.