|
GW BUSH AND HIS TOP LIEUTENANTS BY NORM TRUHIJJO
|
Look at Colin Powell. He seems to still be on board with what we are doing in Iraq. Or else, if he isn't, why doesn't he resign. I felt the same way about Clinton during the Monica thing; if he had been an honorable man, he would have resigned. I will have to say Clinton looks better and better; and in a sense, his situation pales in comparison to Iraq.
As I've said over and over and I can't be all that smart: there's lots of issues that are troubling about Iraq, but the central ones to me are that noway can we bring, under any circumstances, a free and democratic Iraq to the Iraqis. It is crazy, to think that we can do something like that; it is not in the best interest of the religious leaders and their followers are so brain-washed and ignorant.
Please! al Qaeda has so many recruits wanting to die that they can use only 15% of them: if they volunteer, they die, become martyrs and get 110 virgins. And, we are going to counter that view especially when their express goal is our destruction?
We know that George W. is not the brightest bulb on the shelf, but the very idea that he let these radical conservatives in the Pentagon convince him of the argument that an invasion of Iraq could provide some sort of plan for democracy in the Middle East is foolish. It is worse. Insane is what it is!.
But, here's what amazes me. None of this registers with folks.
I am in a group of email buddies, all retired, colonels-smart guys, all Republicans, but me (I view myself as objective, come November and I'm seeing progress and planning to get out of Iraq, etc., I'll support the president.) However, they support George W. regardless; now, this is scary, objectivity be damned. And, my buddies keep sending me these notes from the troops in Iraq, talking about how much good they are doing and the people loving them and the media is distorting it all.
I have no doubt that the troops mean what they say, but it is such a small piece of the confusing puzzle. The objectivity of what is going on simply means that our stuff is in the street.
After listening to George W.'s speech the other night, my views were reinforced that the administration doesn't have a clue how to get out. I have said all along, which is no solution: We should declare victory and get the hell out. We're not going to do that and I cannot see anything positive coming from it.
I truly don't want to sound like some radical democrat: I could care less about the party, but I think that George W. has to go. No choice. I don't think he will. I think the Americans who care will stick with him in the final analysis; sad as personally, I kind of like him, but he has surrounded himself with crooks and incompetents: Cheney for sure and Rumsfeld should resign along with most of the top generals.
It is just too much and I think that if George W. stays, it is more of the same and he won't have the constraint of worrying about election. I don't like Kerry either, but would vote for him simply for change and the idea that he can't do any worse. It is a mess!!!
|
|
|
