It Was Not Good
Time has covered the four options facing the U.S. command authority in the glorious Republic of Iraq, born and bred in the image and likeness of GWB (we are all waiting for the seventh day.) I later read another article stating the National Security Advisor, Steven Hadley, recommends increased funding for Iraqi moderate politicians.
Unfortunately, in all the public discourse on Iraq the funding of this nonsense is never discussed when evaluating options. Bush 41 learned that "It's the economy, stupid," but this lesson seems lost on Bush 43 and the congressional leadership.
I've discussed the imagery of the dump trucks full of $100 bills, dumping their payload in the desert. I wrote recently about the tonnage of $100 bills being expended in Iraq, and the fact that this money is buying nothing for the U.S. taxpayers. It is the proverbial throwing money out the window, throwing good money after bad...and money doesn't grow on trees.
Again the question arises: Where is the money to finance this ill-advised ramp-up to come from, where will it end up, and what does this expenditure buy for the American taxpayer?
Personally, I've passed the Continental Divide with this administration. Approaching the divide, I saw Bush as merely a perverse political characature; I was in awe of the choices that Amercian democracy can deliver at the ballot box, but at least saw him as possessing some entertainment value. Now, Bush's entertainment value has dipped into the red. I am not alone in this feeling.
When democratic action can no longer realistically address issues essential to the well-being and security of our nation, then it seems that the American legacy of the last 42 Presidents is dead. GWB and his contractor/oil/corporate/defense conglomerate cronies have killed it. All this done with the compliance of the Congress, the taxpayers and the voters.
We are all responsible, and future generations will suffer the results
Unfortunately, in all the public discourse on Iraq the funding of this nonsense is never discussed when evaluating options. Bush 41 learned that "It's the economy, stupid," but this lesson seems lost on Bush 43 and the congressional leadership.
I've discussed the imagery of the dump trucks full of $100 bills, dumping their payload in the desert. I wrote recently about the tonnage of $100 bills being expended in Iraq, and the fact that this money is buying nothing for the U.S. taxpayers. It is the proverbial throwing money out the window, throwing good money after bad...and money doesn't grow on trees.
Again the question arises: Where is the money to finance this ill-advised ramp-up to come from, where will it end up, and what does this expenditure buy for the American taxpayer?
Personally, I've passed the Continental Divide with this administration. Approaching the divide, I saw Bush as merely a perverse political characature; I was in awe of the choices that Amercian democracy can deliver at the ballot box, but at least saw him as possessing some entertainment value. Now, Bush's entertainment value has dipped into the red. I am not alone in this feeling.
When democratic action can no longer realistically address issues essential to the well-being and security of our nation, then it seems that the American legacy of the last 42 Presidents is dead. GWB and his contractor/oil/corporate/defense conglomerate cronies have killed it. All this done with the compliance of the Congress, the taxpayers and the voters.
We are all responsible, and future generations will suffer the results
posted by rangeragainstwar at 2:03 PM
4 Comments:
Unfortunately, in all the public discourse on Iraq the funding of this nonsense is never discussed when evaluating options. Bush 41 learned that "It's the economy, stupid," but this lesson seems lost on Bush 43 and the congressional leadership.
As have all lessons he should have learned from history.
I also agree noone's hands are clean on Iraq unless it is those who fought against invasion from the start and have done what they could to end it.
Spiider,
I opposed this war before Bush gave the final assault order, but I still feel a moral responsibility
I belong to fraternal organizations like DAV, MOPH, VFW, Am. Legion, VVA, and all--with the exception of VVA--are all very supportive of the war and the President.
Although I write in protest, I often feel my membership counterbalances my position. I've been vocal at meetings and haven't made a dent in their (il)logic. It's my position all veterans organizations are successful if we never gain new members. This is not the correct viewpoint from an organizational perspective.
IN the MOPH we give plaques, photo ops, dedicate Walls of Honor for KIA's. In one sense this a correct and honorable thing, except I am concerned it encourages the craziness.
To date I have not given up my memberships--many of which are life--but I'm giving it serious consideration. As always we're all only one voice.
"All this done with the compliance of the Congress, the taxpayers and the voters."
I think I'd use "connivance" WRT the Congress; "compliance" clearly fits the rest of us.
However, in defense of we the great unwashed public, the use of the big lie, fear-mongering and brainwashing techniques characteristic of totalitarian systems has been employed to an unprecedented degree against us for the past six years. So, yes, we are stupid, but that doesn't change the fact that our government is rapidly becoming public enemy number one for the citizenry.
Incidentally, I feel no personal responsibility. I knew we were on a wrong course from the beginning, plus I never voted for you-know-who. I'm no late-comer to the light-bulb clicking on dance.
The only military organization to which I belong is MOAA, and that only because it's cheap, I get decent news from the magazine and the Tricare supplemental insurance is pretty good. They also do a decent job in holding the line against benefits erosion, both for active duty and retirees. I don't like some of their editorial stances—e.g., flag-burning amendment (and I have a personal story about that), etc.—but they really aren't a bunch of fire-breathers. They are not, so far as I can tell, supporters of the prez.
I did join VFW once, years ago, when I was stationed for a year in a dry county. Couldn't stand it. Never joined another organization, never will. But that's me.
Good note on the distinction between "connivance" vs. "compliance"; point well-taken. As you know I'm into the minute distinctions of words.
I might check out the MOAA on your suggestions, but I, too, have a hard time dealing with the cross-section of membership. I had to associate with them in the military. I'm really not a big joiner, and no organization acccomplishes much.
The only reason I've joined the organizations is because they lobby for us, and like you, if I have a claims issue, I find they will help in the advocacy process through their service officers. I do my own appeals, but they help short-stop them.
Best,
Jim
Post a Comment
<< Home