Monday, December 19, 2005

Is it just me or did Bush actually make sense last night? I oppose the war in Iraq. I oppose the reasons we went there in the first place, but I have wondered whether or not our presence there was making the situation worse, wether we should stay or pull out, and what would be more damaging. Does our presence cause more uprise in insurgents? But Bush made sense when he said terrorists don't stop terrorizing if you leave, they take over.

That having been said, however, Bush hopes to change my mind, and your mind, on the reasons we went to war in the first place. He admitted faulty intelligence information, but also that given the circumstances and information he has now he'd still go in and invade Iraq all over again. It's a shift away from the WMD issue, and into the benefits of a democratic government in the Middle East. He hasn't changed my mind. We should've been willing to work with the UN, and we should've been more thorough in our intelligence gathering before we invaded. Saddam should've had a trial through the UN instead of blasting the whole country into smitherines.

The truth is, though, present and future conditions in Iraq are going to determine how the American public views the President's decision to go there in the first place.

7 comments:

Esperanza said...

He did. But I always like him, so I'm not a good conversationalist on Bush. I did just find out my cousin just left Saturday for active duty in Bagdad, drives a tank I think. And the problem with us being there, is we won't ever know what it was like not to be there, there is only one choice, be there right now or not, so we don't really know if terrorists would take over or not...but I think Bush is right, they probably would.

Anonymous said...

The only sense he makes is minimizing his errors and marginalizing his critics.

Early returns from Iraq's elections show the government will be dominated by Shiites! How about that - more than 2,000 Americans dead and billions of dollars spent to install a Shi'ite Theocracy!

U.S.A.!!! U.S.A.!!!

Sherpa said...

I read it...and actually noticed how carefully worded certain parts of the speech were. But that being said, as someone who has been skeptical about the whole going to iraq business, I just hope we can make a difference over there. in a good way.

SJ said...

Esperanza-it is important, though you may like him, to give the pres a critical look. You're a smart girl, and he represents us as Americans when he goes and does the things he does. On knowing if terrorists would takeover, Bush doesn't know either. He sometimes tends to listen more to what he wants to believe than actual reality. He does make a good argument, but there have been plenty of complaints from Iraqi insurgents who thought our troops would never leave. They gave our not leaving as the excuse to be so violent, saying they'd keep it up till we're gone. And some of our own commanders have agreed this is the case. And then there are the issues surrounding why we went and blasted up the whole country. I was impressed with his speech. He took a different tone this time, but is pre-emptive war justified? Are we there for the right reasons? Are we truly doing good? Those are the critical questions we must ask. The answer could be either way, but we can't believe him just because he seems nice.

Anonymous-no offense, but it seems the man can never do any right, ever, and is the actual embodiment of evil on the Earth to some. I would invite you to reexamine wether you are truthfully looking at his policy, or blindly beating the propaganda drum. Remember, America was run in the beginning by Protestant White Men. I do think you are dead on about our billions of dollars of deficit. Our grandchildren will be paying for that one.

Sherpa-at this point I hope we're making a difference, too. What's done is done, whether I agree or not. I think it would be detrimental to pull out before a secure government is in place. I don't think we should occupy the place for the next ten years, however.

Anonymous said...

So, if I'm dead on about the billions of dollars - we have to ask if it was worth it.

There's no denying that the Iraqi government will be dominated by Shi'ite fundamentalists who are sympathetic to Iran. There is no way on God's green earth that is good for the United States. In fact, the Iranian government says the elections are a victory for Iran.

Also, read the Conyers report released today, which says the actions of the President and his administration clearly rise to the level of an impeachable offense. Domestic spying, manipulation of intelligence...it goes on and on.

If these things were done by a Democrat - the howls of anguish would be deafening. That's the acid test.

So, try and deny it, but the Republican party is not upset by this - they are simply circling the wagons to preserve their power.

Scully said...

SJ, I believe the country is still run by White Protestant Men regardless of party affiliation. It was a huge deal that Kennedy was Catholic and the issue was also raised when Kerry was running. And members of Congress who aren't White, Protestant, or Men are still a minority.

And Anonymous, I think the major problem facing the United States is the trend of party supremacy, in which the survival of the political party, Republican and Democrat, is a higher priority than the good of the nation or the world.

SJ said...

Dear anonymous-that is the question we must still ask, "was it worth it?" Is this war worth bad PR for America in the rest of Europe and in many places around the world? Is it worth it to spend billions of dollars on something we could possibly have taken care of through a trial at the Hague? Was it worth 2000 American and 30,000 Iraqi lives? I'm not denying anything, and certainly not defending the Republican party (no idea where that assumption came from, but please stop the assumption). I actually posed this question to Esperanza. But there are others who seem to think Bush is synonymous with Hitler. Who believe the man to be the symbol of everything wrong in the world. He can do no right. I wonder how much they've actually thought about his policies,or actually listened to him, rather than demonized him. I don't think he's the devil. I don't agree with him, but I don't think he's the devil, and I'm not sure some dems positions on a pull-out plan are so good, either. I know propagandist rhetoric when it comes up. So should you. Democrats and Republicans do the same thing, and it's all about gaining political power.

Scully, yes it is mainly white, Protestant men, but our country's leaders now include blacks, hispanics, asians, native americans, and women. They may not be the majority, but they're there. It's also a two-party system (and some would argue a fast-coming three party system) so many differing views are shared. You can't judge a government based solely on the sort that tends to get voted into one particular branch.

The majority party seems to be Shiite Muslims in Iraq now, but they're the majority of the people. Now they get a say in their government, wheras before they did not. Also, the acting Prime Minister is running as a secular leader, not a religious one. I'm not saying it's a perfect plan, and I really don't know why I'm bothering to defend it, or that I actually know that much about it. But at some point we have to stop fighting about it and start working on what we have now. We have a possibly disasterous situation if we pull out-especially right now. And telling the insurgents when we are leaving really sounds like a stupid idea. And I'm not the only non-Republican to think this way.